[r6rs-discuss] Comments on syntax-rules

[Trent Buck]

On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 07:23:12PM +0100, Michael Sperber wrote:
> 
> David Van Horn <dvanhorn at cs.brandeis.edu> writes:
> 
> > A few notes and questions on syntax-rules:
> 
> I can only answer one of your bullets:
> 
> > 3) Why not cut the specification of syntax-rules, which is later
> > subsumed and partly duplicated by the specification of syntax-case,
> > and simply replace the current specification with its definition in
> > terms of syntax-case?
> 
> This is to avoid creating a forward dependency between the two.  Also,
> many people (like myself) regard `syntax-rules' as simpler to use, and
> have trouble dealing with `syntax-case'.  We don't want to require
> them to understand the much more complicated specification of
> `syntax-case' just to be able to use `syntax-rules'.

I agree that users shouldn't have to learn syntax-case to use
syntax-rules, but I don't see how defining syntax-rules in terms of
syntax-case in the report would create such a situation.

I've used syntax-rules for months and I still haven't looked at the
R5RS definition of it -- I read JRM's tutorial instead.
-- 
Trent Buck, Student Errant