On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 08:28:09PM +0100, Andy Wingo wrote: > I see that the report decided that the `_', `else', `...', etc auxiliary > syntaxes are to be bound in (scheme base). That's probably a good > thing. Good job. I guess they'd be bound like: > > (define-syntax else (syntax-rules ()) > > Does that definition need to go in the report, along with the definition > of `cond' et al? > > I do suspect that people that aren't used to bound auxiliary syntax will > find it a bit odd.
Yep :) Why should these be treated specially? Should any auxiliary syntax be treated specially? Users would be pretty surprised to see a difference in behavior when defining their own syntactic forms with auxiliary keywords and seeing a different error message when using them "directly". I think trying to catch these things is misguided. It's fine if an implementation like Racket does this to guide students, but seasoned Scheme programmers don't need this kind of hand-holding. Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
