Matthias, > Please search my post for ‘hygiene’. I didn’t mention the word. Off — Matthias
Oops, you are right, sorry. Your example used "let", which is also what everybody used for discussing hygiene, so I jumped to conclusions. Your argument is that pattern matching works at a higher level of abstraction than decomposing s-expressions, and that type-like annotations add useful error checking to those patterns. Point taken. And I certainly agree. But higher-level abstractions are always specializations. For many macro situations, pattern matching is the right abstraction. For others it isn't, and then syntax-parse can become a pain. I have experienced this quite a few times. So let me reformulate my original suggestion: it would be nice if syntax-parse would let me step down one level of abstraction when that seems the better choice. Konrad. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
