On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 06:06:15PM +0200, Andy Wingo wrote: > On Wed 11 May 2011 17:25, Peter Bex <[email protected]> writes: > > > The procedures or syntactic forms er-macro-transformer, > > sc-macro-transformer, syntax-case and syntax-rules already > > hide the implementation details well enough. > > That is true for all but syntax-case.
Of course, you're right. But then that doesn't matter, if R7RS only specifies what happens when you do (define-syntax (syntax-rules ...)) or (define-syntax (er-macro-transformer ...)) that doesn't shut out the possibility of syntax-case, does it? The other way around it does shut out implementations like Chicken where the "er-macro-transformer" line is more or less optional because that's its native system. > You might decide that you don't like it, and that's cool, no > need to implement it. Yes, but you do need to restructure things unneccessarily then. Of course it's a small change and shouldn't break programs written with syntax extensibility in mind, but it *will* break some programs I'm sure. Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx -- "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music." -- Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
