Re: Initial comments & questions campbell@xxxxxx 23 Mar 2004 17:40 UTC
I have yet another idea. (SYNTAX-SEQUENCE <clause> ... <final>) <clause> -> (COMPUTE <pattern> <syntactic computation>) | (LET <pattern> <form>) | (<syntactic computation>) <final> -> <syntactic computation> COMPUTE binds a pattern, a SYNTAX-RULES pattern, to the result of a syntactic computation. LET simply binds a SYNTAX-RULES pattern with a form, not a computation. The third kind of clause ignores the result of a syntactic computation. The result of the SYNTAX-SEQUENCE form is the result of the FINAL. I also have a suggestion to rename SYNTAX-BIND to SYNTAX-EXTEND, as the monadic >>= operator is often differently named.