On 6/24/06, Per Bothner <xxxxxx@bothner.com> wrote:
> David Feuer wrote:
> > As a convenience form I would suggest
<snip>
>
> This is still needlessly verbose.   A problem is the desire for
> orthogonality, separating the binding (define/let/letrec-syntax)
> from the transformer specification.  That is all very well for
> "core" macro syntax, but it is overkill for what people need
> 99% of the time.

I want to clarify that my primary purpose in that message was to
suggest a core form styled after those in R5RS and MIT Scheme, and
compatible with pre-existing implementations, and show how it could
easily support convenience forms.  I don't really care /which/
convenience forms are provided.

David Feuer