Re: Initial comments & questions campbell@xxxxxx 25 Mar 2004 20:58 UTC
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Andre van Tonder wrote: > I think these are all expressible more simply with bind only (assuming we > call it syntax-bind). E.g., > > (syntax-bind ((x (syntax-reverse (x y z)) > (y (syntax-return (u v w)) > (void (syntax-message "Debug message")) > (syntax-append x y)) > > Here the first line does what COMPUTE does, the second line does what > LET does, and the third line is a syntactic computation with a throwaway > result. Oh. Duh. I didn't think of such blinding obviousness. > > I also have a suggestion to rename SYNTAX-BIND to SYNTAX-EXTEND, as the > > monadic >>= operator is often differently named. > > Good idea. OK, so are we going with SYNTAX-EXTEND being the internal >>= form and SYNTAX-BIND being the user-exposed convenient syntax? Also, will SYNTAX-BIND still be without built-in pattern matching as SYNTAX-DO was?