Aaron W. Hsu scripsit:

> I may have been one of the members that did not vote, and I would
> have voted for syntax-case, but I wonder if that would have made any
> difference.

Of course it would; syntax-case would have passed 4-3.  And if the rest
of the current group of syntax-case fans had bothered to join WG2,
it probably would have passed by an even larger margin, and explicit
renaming would have failed. ~~ snort ~~

> 1) Syntax-case isn't more complicated, just more convenient.  2)
> Implicitly enforces hygiene, and makes hygiene break explicit rather
> than the reverse, which, IMO, is a rather important element. The
> default should be hygiene, not the other way around.

I considered proposing implicit renaming (which is to ER as RSC is
to SC; everything is renamed except what's protected by a call on an
anti-renaming procedure), but there's not enough experience with it.  In
addition, Alex Shinn pointed out that the implementation available in
Chicken is O(N^2).

Eli Barzilay scripsit:

> The "minimal API" of a `syntax-case' system is made of (1)
> `syntax-case', (2) `syntax', (3) `syntax->datum', and (4)
> `datum->syntax'.

I'd be willing to add a proposal ("syntax-case-core", perhaps) of this
form to the inbox of WG2 to be voted on.

Andre van Tondering scripsit:

> Also, they cannot just use the original ER system, becasue it is not
> compatible with modules or with syntax-case.

No decisions on the particular form of ER have been made yet.

--
It was dreary and wearisome.  Cold clammy winter still held way in this
forsaken country.  The only green was the scum of livid weed on the dark
greasy surfaces of the sullen waters.  Dead grasses and rotting reeds loomed
up in the mists like ragged shadows of long-forgotten summers.
        --"The Passage of the Marshes"          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

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