Abdulaziz Ghuloum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sep 20, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Michael Sperber wrote: > >> Abdulaziz Ghuloum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Since the R6RS draft changed the way cond, case, let-syntax, >>> letrec-syntax, and syntax-rules are parsed/expanded from how >>> it was in R6RS, which version of these bindings should be in >>> the R5RS environments? If it is the R6RS version of these >>> bindings, then the four identifiers =>, ..., else, and _ >>> should be added to the null-environment. >> >> Except for _, I believe you're right and fix appropriately. > > Bizarre. So, in the null-environment, everything behaves like > R6RS except for syntax-rules, which behaves like R5RS? And > the reason the null-environment's syntax-rules behaves differently > is not because it's a different macro, but because it doesn't > see "the-underscore". But then again, it won't be exactly like > R5RS's anyways because the patters language is different. > > Forget about my ramblings. Who cares about the null-environment > anyways.
Right. But I've added _ nevertheless. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
