Why splicing syntax? Duy Nguyen (27 Mar 2020 08:17 UTC)
Re: Why splicing syntax? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (27 Mar 2020 08:25 UTC)
Re: Why splicing syntax? Arthur A. Gleckler (28 Mar 2020 05:02 UTC)
Re: Why splicing syntax? Duy Nguyen (30 Mar 2020 08:19 UTC)
Re: Why splicing syntax? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (30 Mar 2020 08:41 UTC)
Re: Why splicing syntax? John Cowan (30 Mar 2020 14:31 UTC)
Re: Why splicing syntax? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (30 Mar 2020 14:45 UTC)
Re: Why splicing syntax? John Cowan (30 Mar 2020 15:30 UTC)
Re: Why splicing syntax? Duy Nguyen (31 Mar 2020 10:05 UTC)

Re: Why splicing syntax? Duy Nguyen 30 Mar 2020 08:19 UTC

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 3:25 PM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
<xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> Am Fr., 27. März 2020 um 09:17 Uhr schrieb Duy Nguyen <xxxxxx@gmail.com>:
>>
>> This may be a dumb question but what does splicing syntax give?
>
>
> It's not a dumb question; it was a stupid mistake on my side.

Maybe you could expand a bit on the rationale though. Even with that
fix my thinking was "so it helps reduce one macro (em), big deal". I
didn't follow Scheme development closely (and completely ignored
scheme while r6rs was developed) maybe that's why I just don't see why
it's non-controversal as others do. I could understand if this is an
effort to bring back a feature from r6rs and somewhat unify the two
standards.
--
Duy