Re: [racket-dev] implicit begin for define-syntax-rule

2012-05-07 Thread Marijn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04-05-12 21:54, Vincent St-Amour wrote: I don't think that's what Marijn was suggesting. I understood it as: (define-syntax-rule (define-complex real-name imag-name rhs) (define real-name (real-part rhs)) (define imag-name (imag-part

Re: [racket-dev] implicit begin for define-syntax-rule

2012-05-07 Thread Eli Barzilay
Just now, Marijn wrote: Yes, that is indeed what I meant. I wanted to benefit from being able to use multiple forms as in lambda, The problem is which if the two `begin' features you want -- splicing of definitions or sequencing side effects... but on second thought I guess this would

Re: [racket-dev] implicit begin for define-syntax-rule

2012-05-04 Thread Vincent St-Amour
- From: Marijn hk...@gentoo.org To: dev@racket-lang.org Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 5:39:10 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [racket-dev] implicit begin for define-syntax-rule -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, would it make sense for define-syntax-rule

[racket-dev] implicit begin for define-syntax-rule

2012-05-03 Thread Marijn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, would it make sense for define-syntax-rule to have an implicit begin such that it could accept multiple forms for the template? Marijn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -

Re: [racket-dev] implicit begin for define-syntax-rule

2012-05-03 Thread J. Ian Johnson
) (syntax-rules stx () [(_ pat0 ...) rhs0] [(_ pats ...) rhss] ...)))])) -Ian - Original Message - From: Marijn hk...@gentoo.org To: dev@racket-lang.org Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 5:39:10 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [racket-dev] implicit begin