For the syntactically wrong uses of `syntax-case', At Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:06:55 -0600, Jon Rafkind wrote: > > (syntax-case #'1 () 2) > bad clause in: 2 > > (syntax-case #'1 () [2]) > bad clause in: (2)
the actual error message said "_": _: bad clause in: 2 I've fixed that bug so that it says `syntax-case'. > > (syntax-case #'1 () 2) > expected a list of clauses in: 2 I think you meant "expected a clause containing a pattern, an optional guard expression, and an expression". I've changed the message to that. > > (syntax-case #'1 () [2]) > expected 2 or 3 expressions in a clause in: (2) Same as above. (In particular, the first part of a clause is a pattern, not an expression.) > > (syntax-case #'1 () [2 2]) > syntax-case was unable to match any patterns in: 1 > > There seems to be some disagreement with adding the name 'syntax-case' > into the error message. I could live without that I guess, but it would > be nice to change 'bad syntax' to something more informative, at least. For now, I'm opposed to either change. A mis-user of a syntactic form shouldn't need to know that the form is implemented with `syntax-case' or even with pattern matching. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
