(Previous discussion continued)
Re: isn't computation-rules redundant? Andre van Tonder 23 Mar 2004 12:04 UTC

Re: isn't computation-rules redundant? Andre van Tonder 23 Mar 2004 12:04 UTC

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Alex Shinn wrote:

> I have the same pet-peeve with {define,let,letrec}-syntax and
> syntax-rules, but in
>
>   (define-syntax-computation foo
>     (computation-rules () ...))
>
> computation-rules is a noiseword.  You could just as easily write
>
>   (define-syntax-computation foo ()
>     ...)

I agree.  This is in fact exactly how I had it in the first version.
Later I thought it would be more consistent to write instead, as Taylor
Campbell also noted,

  (define-syntax foo
    (computation-rules () ...)

However, this seems impossible to do using the syntax-rules
implementations I have at hand.  However, I
still think this would be the most satisfying way, and I wanted to leave
the current syntax somewhat compatible with maybe having this in future.

Regards
Andre