[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] Scheme pattern matching: the case for (case)
Andre van Tonder scripsit:
> No, I think this would be wrong. There is no requirement in R6RS to
> implement CASE using macros at all, never mind hygienic macros. The
> sematics of CASE is perfectly well described in R6RS as part of the core,
> and precludes Peter's interpretation already.
I've clarified the ticket to say that standard syntax forms must be
implemented *as if* hygienic macros were used.
> The standard should remain agnostic as to how CASE is implemented.
John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan cowan@x
[T]here is a Darwinian explanation for the refusal to accept Darwin.
Given the very pessimistic conclusions about moral purpose to which his
theory drives us, and given the importance of a sense of moral purpose
in helping us cope with life, a refusal to believe Darwin's theory may
have important survival value. --Ian Johnston
Scheme-reports mailing list