[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Scheme-reports] [wg2] in support of single-arity procedural syntax transformers

On 05/11/11 12:41, Alex Shinn wrote:
> Are you actually arguing that MIT Scheme, Chicken,
> Chibi, riaxpander and others should have to rewrite
> their entire macro system?  When there's a trivial
> compromise available?

What trivial compromise do you have in mind, Alex?

Mine is that the exact nature of an expander is
implementation-dependent, and that's what macros like "syntax-rules" et
al are for: to map from standard forms into the common one. Might not
even be a closure, although that is an obvious choice?


Alaric Snell-Pym

Scheme-reports mailing list