Hello, I agree that this is much shorter, but I'm worried about defining the short syntax in a way that forces you to choose between syntax-rules and syntax-case. What I mean is that you could just as easily have
(define-syntax (foo bar) ...) expand to (define-syntax foo (syntax-rules () ((_ bar) ...))) It seems to me that this makes a somewhat arbitrary choice, which isn't great. I'd rather see some way to unify the two possibilities, but I don't know what that would be. There's also the possibility of making it expand to (define-syntax foo (syntax-case tmp ... ((bar) ...))) because it is more analogous to how regular procedures work. I don't know what the right choice is, but it's a good point that there probably should be something. Noah On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Chris K. Jester-Young <cky...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi there, > > When writing syntax-case macros, often one would write: > > (define-syntax foo > (lambda (bar) > (syntax-case bar ...))) > > This seems overly long-winded; it would be preferable to be able to > write, instead: > > (define-syntax (foo bar) > (syntax-case bar ...)) > > Attached is a patch that implements that. Note that there is nothing > original in this patch---it's just a straight copy-and-paste of the > "define" version immediately above, except changing define-form to > define-syntax-form---so there should be nothing controversial from a > correctness and/or copyright point of view. > > Let me know what you think. > > Many thanks, > Chris. >