On Thu 12 May 2011 09:38, Alex Shinn <alexshinn@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's probably just wishful thinking, but it would be nice if we used the
>> same arities here, though...  I don't want to be all imperialist and say
>> "hey chickeners!  you must change your thing!", but the single-arity
>> transformers might even be better for yall as well (for source
>> information, for example; though is that a red herring?).
>
> Yes, source info is a red herring - all of the SC and ER
> systems I know retain source info.

Even for bare identifiers, and other values that can't be put into weak
eq? table, as I mentioned in an earlier mail?

> I'm still unclear by your motivation.

I wish you would address my points instead of parody and questioning my
motivation.

> Just wrap the form and there are no problems, and you've lost nothing.
> Why expose the implementation details?

I found that when I was learning hygienic procedural syntax
transformers that I never understood them until I was clear on what was
doing what.  That could simply be my ignorance, though.  For me it was
easier to understand as being layered on procedures that take programs
and make programs, and helped me to understand syntax-rules as well.
Clearly there is some point at which abstractions cost more than they
are worth: too much magic.  Macros can be that way.

Anyway, I think I've made all of the points that I wanted to make.
Thank you for taking them under consideration.

Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/

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