Hi! On Sun 03 Jul 2011 22:19, "Chris K. Jester-Young" <cky...@gmail.com> writes:
> When writing syntax-case macros, often one would write: > > (define-syntax foo > (lambda (bar) > (syntax-case bar ...))) > > This seems overly long-winded; it would be preferable to be able to > write, instead: > > (define-syntax (foo bar) > (syntax-case bar ...)) I am not sure what I think about this. On the one hand it elides things that you type all the time. On the other hand sometimes I think it obscures the fact that there is a lambda there; I'm used to having (define (foo bar) ...) mentally indicate "procedure", but (define-syntax (foo bar) ...) doesn't mentally indicate that for me, in part because it's explicitly in the domain of macros, where we have to think about what we're parsing. For example, we are trained now to consider syntax-rules to be a language that looks like scheme but it not scheme. Without the lambda, would people have trouble identifying a procedural macro as being Scheme? On the whole I am skeptical. But, Chez Scheme and Racket both made this change. So I could go either way, though I would like thoughts from other people before proceeding. On the other hand, one thing that is clearly useful is `define-syntax-rule'. I'll add that now. Andy Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
