Begin forwarded message:

> From: Alvationsay Petrofsky <xxxxxx@petrofsky.org>
> Date: Tue Oct 21, 2003  10:18:20 US/Eastern
> To: xxxxxx@evdev.ath.cx
> Subject: Re: reference implementation; multiple patterns after ellipsis
>
>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:36:53 -0400
>> From: Taylor Campbell <xxxxxx@evdev.ath.cx>
>
> Did you mean to respond only to me and not the list?
>
>> Eek.  That would require that I somehow comprehend psyntax.  If
>> Scott and Felix can only _barely_ comprehend it, I have grave doubts
>> about _me_ comprehending it...(but I suppose I can try to, and maybe
>> try to comprehend yours as well, although the more I think about it
>> the more I dislike the idea of writing a macro transformer purely for
>> SYNTAX-RULES and _directly_ for SYNTAX-RULES; Scheme48's macro
>> expander, for instance, totals fewer than one thousand lines of code,
>> _including_ comments, and it's a SYNTAX-RULES->explicit renaming
>> transformer _as_well_as_ a macro expander for explicit renaming;
>> unfortunately, the explicit renaming bit uses Scheme48's internal AST
>> stuff, so it's not portable at all)
>
> If you like scheme48's implementation, then you should extend it to
> support SRFI-46.  Then we'll have two independent implementations,
> which is much better than one, even if neither is of practical use
> with most scheme systems.
>
>> I guess I could put a link to your expander in the implementation
>> section.  Would that be OK?
>
> No, a copy of the reference implementation (whatever it is) should be
> stored with the SRFI.
>
> -al
>