Re: SRFI 10 Per Bothner 25 Nov 2012 02:22 UTC

On 11/24/2012 03:24 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> In particular, I am proposing that in an implementation that supports
> SRFI 108, the objects created by SRFI 10 syntax are lists whose car
> is `$quasi-value$` (or whatever, depending on other mail threads).
> This is a formally correct and very useful object to create.  There is
> no requirement for SRFI 10 to create a "final" object.

Good point.  However, I don't see there is much benefit in
re-defining SRFI 10 in terms of SRFI 108:
* SRFI 10 syntax is incompatible with syntax-case and R6RS.
* Existing SRFI 10 implementations (I assume) do the expansion
at read-time.  Some applications may depend on this.  Thus you're
losing most of the compatibility advantage.
* I personally think the SRFI 10 syntax is uglier than the SRFI 108
	--Per Bothner