Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports] Scheme pattern matching & R*RS

[Peter Kourzanov <peter.kourzanov@x>]

Jim,

I would like to know why (case) is excluded from this proposal.

Regards,
Pjotr

On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 10:44 -0500, Jim Wise wrote:
> Per Bothner <per@x> writes:
> 
> > The (default/preferred) syntax for lambda should do pattern-matching
> > *without* having to use a verbose name like match-lambda*.  I don't
> > want either of these:
> > (1) People learning and using Scheme having to mix 2 sets of
> > keywords depending on whether they want to use pattern-matching.
> > (2) Having to use keywords that are *even more* verbose than R6RS.
> 
> FWIW, with John Cowan's and my changes to the MatchingWise proposal,
> importing the (rnrs match) library overrides the following forms from
> (rnrs core) and (rnrs control) with versions which do pattern matching
> but are otherwise upwardly compatible with the non-pattern matching
> versions:
> 
>         lambda
>         case-lambda
>         let
>         let*
>         letrec
> 
> It is intended that importing (rnrs match) will not change the meaning
> of any existing code; this way the library lays the groundwork for
> making such behavior the default in a future version of the report.
> 
> The proposal is at
> 
>     http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/MatchingWise
> 



_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
r6rs-discuss@x
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss