Group Email Manager

login signup
[Scheme-reports] EVAL Andre van Tonder (23 Apr 2011 23:47 UTC)
[Scheme-reports] What happened to (UNQUOTE <expression> ...) Andre van Tonder (24 Apr 2011 00:04 UTC)
[Scheme-reports] Are generated toplevel definitions secret? Andre van Tonder (24 Apr 2011 00:15 UTC)
[Scheme-reports] COND, CASE, AND, ... macros are buggy Andre van Tonder (24 Apr 2011 00:24 UTC)
[Scheme-reports] Buggy definition of BEGIN Andre van Tonder (24 Apr 2011 00:33 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Buggy definition of BEGIN Jussi Piitulainen (24 Apr 2011 06:55 UTC)
[Scheme-reports] Restrictions on internal BEGIN? Andre van Tonder (24 Apr 2011 01:45 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Restrictions on internal BEGIN? Jussi Piitulainen (24 Apr 2011 07:20 UTC)
[Scheme-reports] Toplevel import scoping Andre van Tonder (24 Apr 2011 02:02 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Toplevel import scoping Alex Shinn (24 Apr 2011 02:44 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Toplevel import scoping Aaron W. Hsu (29 Apr 2011 17:11 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Toplevel import scoping Aaron W. Hsu (29 Apr 2011 17:10 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Are generated toplevel definitions secret? Andre van Tonder (24 Apr 2011 15:53 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: Are generated toplevel definitions secret? Aaron W. Hsu (24 May 2011 18:51 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Are generated toplevel definitions secret? Sztefan Edwards (25 May 2011 14:32 UTC)
Re: Are generated toplevel definitions secret? Aaron W. Hsu (25 May 2011 20:03 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Are generated toplevel definitions secret? Perry E. Metzger (07 Nov 2011 18:40 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Are generated toplevel definitions secret? Perry E. Metzger (07 Nov 2011 18:45 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] What happened to (UNQUOTE <expression> ...) Alex Shinn (24 Apr 2011 02:12 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] What happened to (UNQUOTE <expression> ...) Andre van Tonder (24 Apr 2011 03:10 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] EVAL Alex Shinn (24 Apr 2011 02:10 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] EVAL John Cowan (24 Apr 2011 06:56 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] What happened to (UNQUOTE <expression> ...) Alex Shinn 24 Apr 2011 02:12 UTC 
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Andre van Tonder <andre@het.brown.edu> wrote:
> and (unquote-splicing <expression> ...)?
>
> In other words, more than one argument to UNQUOTE(-SPLICING).
>
> These were added in R6RS to fix some well-known shortcomings of quasiquote.
> The issue and the R6RS solution had been known for a long time and were
> discussed by many authors for many years before being adopted.
> I for one liked the change and probably have code that depends on it.

It looks reasonable to me, but could you point us
to the discussions or rationales?

Specifically, how is (unquote-splicing a b c) different from
,@a ,@b ,@c ?

--
Alex

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