|
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