On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Jim Rees <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...for that matter shouldn't it also be "zero or more expressions" ? > If you wanted to make that extension, but this had not even been proposed. This is consistent with requiring, e.g. lambda bodies be non-empty. Note some implementations have a let-syntax which "splices" into the outer context, in which case having only definitions but no expressions could be useful. But R7RS follows R5RS with a non-splicing let-syntax. ..and while this may already have been mentioned in the past, it may not be > possible to decide what the elements of <body> are (definitions or > expressions) until after expanding them using the syntax definitions > provided. > Yes, an implementation would need to expand before checking for errors. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
