Rest and patterns David Van Horn (18 May 2005 20:47 UTC)
Re: Rest and patterns Neil W. Van Dyke (18 May 2005 22:00 UTC)
How about dropping semi-variable-arity? Petrofsky, The Reverend Al (19 May 2005 02:01 UTC)
Re: Rest and patterns David Van Horn (19 May 2005 16:40 UTC)
Re: Rest and patterns Neil W. Van Dyke (19 May 2005 18:22 UTC)

Rest and patterns David Van Horn 18 May 2005 20:30 UTC

The recent discussion over binding the "rest" of the values seems to me to be
a proposal for a (very small) pattern language, and an extension of `let' to
allow for patterns in the LHS of each clause.

So, perhaps this SRFI would be better suited by developing a thorough pattern
language, which `let' could be extended to use.  The "values" part of this
proposal would simply fall out of such an approach.

Or, on the other hand, perhaps this SRFI should remain within it's current
scope, but in that case I would suggest leaving the extension of `let' in such
a way that it is still possible to extend `let' to use patterns in the future.
  For this reason, I suggest keeping the `values' keyword that Neil W. Van
Dyke recently argued against.

David