On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 13:54 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> However, because CASE is for literals, eqv? seems fine to me. The > reason we started on this tangent was because of the idea that CASE > should be for more than literals and (ick) should become some sort of > binding form. R6RS has already introduced quite a few new binding forms. So trading generalized (case) for (letrec*, let-values and let-values*) and not introducing new ones (match, match-case, case-lambda, match-let etc. etc. etc.) or going with (case*) idea seems not to be a big deal. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss