Hi Wolf, So nothing has to be done here, right?
Thanks, Marc Am Do., 11. Jan. 2024 um 23:57 Uhr schrieb Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe < [email protected]>: > On 2024-01-10 13:20 -0500, Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe wrote: > > I'm also not sure why the following syntax-rules-style patterns were > > excluded from the SRFI's pattern language: > > > > (⟨pattern⟩ … ⟨pattern⟩ ⟨ellipsis⟩ ⟨pattern⟩ …) > > (⟨pattern⟩ … ⟨pattern⟩ ⟨ellipsis⟩ ⟨pattern⟩ … . ⟨pattern⟩) > > > > It's especially glaring since > > #(⟨pattern⟩ … ⟨pattern⟩ ⟨ellipsis⟩ ⟨pattern⟩ …) is a valid vector > > pattern; stripping off the # yields an invalid list pattern. > > Sorry, sorry. I understand now that pair patterns are recursively > defined, unlike vector patterns, and that the above patterns can > be decomposed as (⟨pattern⟩ . ⟨pattern⟩) forms. Thus they *are* > supported. > > Sorry for the confusion and for continually replying to myself. > > -- > Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <[email protected]> >
