On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Peter Kourzanov <peter.kourzanov@x>
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 13:54 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:R6RS has already introduced quite a few new binding forms. So trading
> However, because CASE is for literals, eqv? seems fine to me. The
> reason we started on this tangent was because of the idea that CASE
> should be for more than literals and (ick) should become some sort of
> binding form.
generalized (case) for (letrec*, let-values and let-values*) and not
introducing new ones (match, match-case, case-lambda, match-let etc.
etc. etc.) or going with (case*) idea seems not to be a big deal.