Hi Alex, On Fri 20 May 2011 09:08, Alex Shinn <[email protected]> writes:
> existing syntactic-closures implementations simply can't support > single argument expanders (modulo hypothetical rewrites to their macro > systems discussed in this thread). Characterizing what seems to me to be a minor change as a "rewrite" is not accurate. Example: Guile's copy of psyntax is some 2500 lines long. If arity-3 syntax transformers were the thing, I would only have to change the "expand-macro" routine (called chi-macro for silly reasons). That procedure is only 50 lines long, and I wouldn't have to do very much to it. If -- and who are we talking about here, is it a Chicken and Chibi thing, only? Chibi can't be the point there, because surely you are amenable to sensible changes, and you have a more nimble user base. Is it just Chicken -- so if Chicken is willing to make this minor change, then I think we should do it, because it's more fundamental *and* more extensible in the future. Has anyone asked? Are you representing them both here, somehow? Anyway if the `define-syntax (lambda (x y z a b c) ...)' folk are holding out on this change, hey that's fine too. I think that the WG2 standard will be less useful in that case, however. Regards, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/ _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
