Hi,
The "case is hygienic" test case in `syntax.test' looks suspicious to
me. Why would the fact that `else' is bound influence the syntax of
`case'?
For `cond', whether `else' and `=>' are bound does have an impact,
though. Perhaps those bits were copied from `cond'?
The relevant changes date
Hi,
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One possibility for duplicates would be lazy checking, only check for
> a clash when actually using a symbol. That's sort of the prolog
> theory: don't worry now about what might never come up. I suspect the
> total work would end up greater though.
Hi,
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One possibility for duplicates would be lazy checking, only check for
> a clash when actually using a symbol. That's sort of the prolog
> theory: don't worry now about what might never come up. I suspect the
> total work would end up greater though.
Oops, I hit `C-c C-c' too early. :-)
Ludo'.
___
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> The "case is hygienic" test case in `syntax.test' looks suspicious to
> me. Why would the fact that `else' is bound influence the syntax of
> `case'?
Ok, this is because of the definition of `case' in terms of
`syntax-rules' in R5RS (I remember discu
