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.