Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] Scheme pattern matching: the case for (case)

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Andre van Tonder scripsit:

> No, I think this would be wrong.  There is no requirement in R6RS to 
> implement CASE using macros at all, never mind hygienic macros.  The 
> sematics of CASE is perfectly well described in R6RS as part of the core, 
> and precludes Peter's interpretation already.

I've clarified the ticket to say that standard syntax forms must be
implemented *as if* hygienic macros were used.

> The standard should remain agnostic as to how CASE is implemented.

+1

-- 
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan    cowan@x
[T]here is a Darwinian explanation for the refusal to accept Darwin.
Given the very pessimistic conclusions about moral purpose to which his
theory drives us, and given the importance of a sense of moral purpose
in helping us cope with life, a refusal to believe Darwin's theory may
have important survival value. --Ian Johnston

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports