Group Email Manager

login signup
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? Peter Kourzanov (22 Dec 2010 20:32 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? Thomas Bushnell, BSG (22 Dec 2010 21:02 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? Eli Barzilay (22 Dec 2010 23:37 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] Bigloo Peter Kourzanov (22 Dec 2010 20:35 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] Bigloo Thomas Bushnell, BSG (22 Dec 2010 21:01 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] returning back to pattern matching Thomas Bushnell, BSG (22 Dec 2010 21:55 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] returning back to pattern matching Peter Kourzanov (23 Dec 2010 10:02 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] returning back to pattern matching Thomas Bushnell, BSG (23 Dec 2010 19:47 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] returning back to pattern matching Thomas Bushnell, BSG (24 Dec 2010 00:53 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] returning back to pattern matching Peter Kourzanov 23 Dec 2010 10:02 UTC 
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 13:54 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

> However, because CASE is for literals, eqv? seems fine to me. The
> reason we started on this tangent was because of the idea that CASE
> should be for more than literals and (ick) should become some sort of
> binding form.

R6RS has already introduced quite a few new binding forms. So trading
generalized (case) for (letrec*, let-values and let-values*) and not
introducing new ones (match, match-case, case-lambda, match-let etc.
etc. etc.) or going with (case*) idea seems not to be a big deal.

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports