Re: Clarification on the match clauses and catamorphisms
Marc Nieper-WiÃkirchen 12 Nov 2022 22:59 UTC
Thanks for asking!
The square brackets are equivalent to parentheses. I use both of them
to demonstrate a good R6RS style when square and round brackets are
available. An R7RS programmer would just use the round parentheses.
I will add a note to the text to avoid confusion.
Marc
Am Sa., 12. Nov. 2022 um 18:48 Uhr schrieb Jani Juhani Sinervo
<xxxxxx@sinervo.fi>:
>
> So, in the spec the <clause> productions are presented as either
>
> ```
> [<pattern> <body>]
> ```
>
> or
>
> ```
> [<pattern> (guard <guard expression ...>) <body>]
> ```
>
> Alongside that, the catamorphisms in the patterns are presented as `,[var]`. My question is basically asking clarification on whether the square brackets presented are just a stylistic choice in the SRFI currently, or whether they'd be mandatory. I am asking, since of course in R6RS the brackets are already specified as being equivalent to parentheses and a significant amount of Schemes outside of that even in R7RS allow the usage of square brackets the same way.
>
> I feel that this should be clarified in the text, and if the square brackets were to be considered mandatory for the match clauses and catamorphisms, reconsidered.
