moving on
Taylor Campbell
(07 Dec 2003 19:48 UTC)
|
Re: moving on
Taylor Campbell
(07 Dec 2003 20:13 UTC)
|
Re: moving on
bear
(07 Dec 2003 21:53 UTC)
|
Re: moving on
Taylor Campbell
(08 Dec 2003 00:04 UTC)
|
Re: moving on
Brian Mastenbrook
(08 Dec 2003 00:04 UTC)
|
Re: moving on Alfresco Petrofsky (07 Dec 2003 23:27 UTC)
|
Re: moving on
Taylor Campbell
(14 Dec 2003 18:52 UTC)
|
Re: moving on Alfresco Petrofsky 07 Dec 2003 23:27 UTC
> From: Taylor Campbell <xxxxxx@evdev.ath.cx> > It seems that there is a lot more debate about SYNTAX-RIASTRADH to > come, and I'm not sure if this SRFI has a draft lifetime long enough > to potentially wait for it. I'm against CYOE, now; it adds a kludge > that SYNTAX-RIASTRADH is specifically designed to defend. What kludginess are you talking about? Your concern is that the addition of an optional positional argument makes the calling convention too hairy, right? I can go along with that assessment, although I think the hairiness of (syntax-rules <ellipsis>? <literals> <rule>+) is actually just shy of being too hairy (and is equihairy with (let <name>? <bindings> <body-elt>+), which seems to work just fine in practice). But the calling convention is a trivial issue compared to the functionality of Choose-Your-Own-Ellipsis. The choice is the thing. I thought people agreed that hygienically binding your identifier of choice to the role of the ellipsis is more flexible and less kludgy than (... ...). As I said in the message in which I proposed the idea, it can work with whatever calling convention you want to specify: positional or keyword. I don't understand why you are still lumping together under the name "syntax-riastradh" two ideas of wildly disparate radicalness: unhygienic identifier insertion (radical -- requires more experimentation and experience before SRFI-dom) and a keyword-tagged argument list (not so radical). Bear writes: > My recommendation is keep it simple: > > ... > (... ...) > (... ... ...) > (... ... ... ...) > > etc, to match existing practice. What existing practice are you talking about? Where is this implemented? Please, either choose something new and superior (CYOE), or go with what Chez Scheme and Macros-That-Work implemented over a decade ago: (... <template>) expands just like <template>, but with ... having no special meaning within the <template>. This means nested uses can be (... (... ...)), although more commonly you do something like (... (syntax-rules () ((m) (... ...)))). This feature enables (as would CYOE) powerful things like transformer-macro-blocks.scm (see October 19 post) for which plain old (... ...) does not suffice. -al