On 2020-11-16 08:12 +0100, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> The original idea of the syntax `define-enumeration` is to have
> constructors of enumeration sets without runtime overhead. The current
> implementation produces constructor syntax that has quite some runtime
> overhead and doesn't encourage the use of enumerations in production
> code. Please provide fast versions (may need lower-level macros, e.g.
> syntax-case, to test for symbol equality).

"Fast" is a somewhat vague requirement, and I'm not sure what
"quite some runtime overhead" refers to here.  The macros produced by
the current define-enum implementation shouldn't be any slower at
producing enum-sets/enums than the procedural versions--though perhaps
that's what you're objecting to.

I'm aware that R6RS has in mind a syntax-level approach here, which
would require something other than syntax-rules.  But that doesn't
seem to me to fit with SRFI 209's notion of enums, and John has
specified define-enum differently.

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>

"What's our game?  We have the ways of making things, but things are
evidence.  Perhaps, one day, the thing we'll make is sense."
--Conor McBride