Andre van Tonder scripsit: > No, I think this would be wrong. There is no requirement in R6RS to > implement CASE using macros at all, never mind hygienic macros. The > sematics of CASE is perfectly well described in R6RS as part of the core, > and precludes Peter's interpretation already.
I've clarified the ticket to say that standard syntax forms must be implemented *as if* hygienic macros were used. > The standard should remain agnostic as to how CASE is implemented. +1 -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org [T]here is a Darwinian explanation for the refusal to accept Darwin. Given the very pessimistic conclusions about moral purpose to which his theory drives us, and given the importance of a sense of moral purpose in helping us cope with life, a refusal to believe Darwin's theory may have important survival value. --Ian Johnston _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
