I think the whole concept is an insane departure from the guiding principle of Scheme standardization, which is to provide a small set of extremely powerful features. Perhaps the WG2 thing language should be called "CL-Scheme" and have a loop macro. :)
Thomas On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Peter Kourzanov <[email protected]>wrote: > 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. > > >
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
