Andy Wingo scripsit: > I think the division of valid kinds of declarations as "variable > definitions, syntax definitions, or record-type definitions" is pretty > nasty. I don't see why record-type definitions can't be defined as a > sequence of variable and syntax definitions.
The (IMHO ill-conceived) distinction between primitive and derived syntax maintained by the R5RS has not been introduced into definitions, library declarations, or procedures. It's true that a record type definition MAY be expanded to a sequence of syntax definitions and variable definitions, but there is no requirement that this be so: it may be treated as a co-equal primitive form. -- John Cowan <[email protected]> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes, Set anz totz pleinz ad ested in Espagnes. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
