Re: isn't computation-rules redundant? campbell@xxxxxx (25 Mar 2004 20:55 UTC)
Re: isn't computation-rules redundant? campbell@xxxxxx 25 Mar 2004 20:55 UTC
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Alex Shinn wrote:
> Since we need to define define-syntax-computation separately in this
> SRFI for portability, why not make it the more readable version?
I'd rather lose that portability element, since it already is quite
portable _anyways_ to define a SYNTAX-COMPUTATIONS (or whatever it ends
up being called) macro that can work just fine in syntax definition
right-hand-sides, even if that is non-standard; that way DEFINE-SYNTAX
does not lose its universal status as the introducer of derived syntax
and only a little bit of portability is lost. I really don't think the
extremely minor element of brevity here makes any difference at all.