> From: Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > that is, `#:use-modules X Y Z' would be exactly equivalent > to `#:use-module X #:use-module Y #:use-module Z'. > > quantitatively, for N upstream (used) modules, this would result > in N-1 fewer keywords required in the `define-module' form. > > what do people think of this syntatic sugar?
Syntactic sugar is really boring. I have never understood why there are #: keywords in the first place. Why don't quoted symbols and keywords defined by macros and syntactic abstraction totally suffice? > ... i should wait so as to be able to harmonize w/ > [guile 8] design. perhaps we can start to build > towards each other in this way. It would be heartening to read that the maintainer of the fork wants to build toward the other branch were it not for the cynical suspicion that that "harmonize" is like "bi-pertisan"; it means everyone should do it my way, even if they fundamentally disagree with me. If you want to harmonize, maybe both branches could think about implementing R6RS library forms. -- Keith _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
