On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 04:04:10PM +0200, Taylan Ulrich B. wrote:That's what I intuitively thought, as well. And it was easiest to
> Peter Bex <Peter.Bex@x> writes:
> > [...] what should happen when the underscore is chosen as the ellipsis
> > identifier?
> Intuitively I would expect it to work as ellipsis in that case, because
> we're explicitly specifying that, whereas the default meaning is
> implicit. I can't see if draft 9 specifies anything about this, though.
add it this way to Chicken's syntax-rules implementation :)
> By the way, I wonder why we can't specify an alternative for the> underscore, while we can specify what to use as <ellipsis>.The more I think about it, the more I think the underscore wildcard is a
big mistake. It's unneccessary, does not extend cleanly like you pointed
out, and breaks backwards compatibility. But voting has ended, so this
is likely to be kept as-is.
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports