On 8/12/05, Michael Sperber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The issue has come up in the discussion, but hasn't really been in the > focus yet: > > I'd like to suggest that compound expressions be represented by an > opaque type rather than by pairs. This would ensure a modicum of > abstraction, and would *really* make comprehensive the ability of all > syntax objects to carry location information. I've come to appreciate > this added layer of abstraction in PLT Scheme. >
But wouldn't this completely break the (IMHO) rather practical ability to destructure arguments passed to macros via normal Scheme operators? What I like about srfi-72 is that I can write hygienic macros with (nearly) the same ease as in conventional Lisp-/quasiquote-style. In fact this is what I consider the most innovative feature for SRFI-72. cheers, felix
