What I wanted to express is that later
additions to the R7RS-large might make possibly better
abstractions/syntax possible. At least for R7RS-large it does not seem
to make sense to me to restrict ourselves to syntax that can be
portably implemented with `syntax-rules' until we haven't decided on
the macro system of R7RS-large.
I see your point. But that will be a hard fight. How would things be better with syntax-case? (I am asking for instruction, not rhetorically.)
> Unfortunately, the Chibi syntax-case layer depends on syntactic closures,
whereas Chicken and Gauche only provide explicit renaming. (Syntactic closure support is rare: MIT, Chibi, Picrin.)
What do you mean by "unfortunately"?
By "unfortunately" I mean that if an implementation of syntax-case could be provided on top of explicit renaming, then the barrier to adopting syntax-case as a standard part of the large language is greatly reduced.
while `syntax-case'
cannot be implemented on top of explicit renaming or syntactic
closures, it can after slight modifications.
Do you mean modifications to syntax-case itself, or to the substrate? And what would those modifications consist of? We could standardize slightly different versions of either.
John Cowan
http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.orgThe known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand
on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability.
Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land,
to add something to the extent and the solidity of our possessions.
--Thomas Henry Huxley