On 2024-01-10 13:20 -0500, Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe wrote:
> I'm also not sure why the following syntax-rules-style patterns were
> excluded from the SRFI's pattern language:
>
> (⟨pattern⟩ … ⟨pattern⟩ ⟨ellipsis⟩ ⟨pattern⟩ …)
> (⟨pattern⟩ … ⟨pattern⟩ ⟨ellipsis⟩ ⟨pattern⟩ … . ⟨pattern⟩)
>
> It's especially glaring since
> #(⟨pattern⟩ … ⟨pattern⟩ ⟨ellipsis⟩ ⟨pattern⟩ …) is a valid vector
> pattern; stripping off the # yields an invalid list pattern.

Sorry, sorry. I understand now that pair patterns are recursively
defined, unlike vector patterns, and that the above patterns can
be decomposed as (⟨pattern⟩ . ⟨pattern⟩) forms. Thus they *are*
supported.

Sorry for the confusion and for continually replying to myself.

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