Re: [Scheme-reports] <body> of let-syntax

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Jim Rees <jimreesma@x> wrote:

...for that matter shouldn't it also be "zero or more expressions" ?

If you wanted to make that extension, but this had not even been

proposed.  This is consistent with requiring, e.g. lambda bodies be

non-empty.

Note some implementations have a let-syntax which "splices"

into the outer context, in which case having only definitions

but no expressions could be useful.  But R7RS follows R5RS

with a non-splicing let-syntax.

..and while this may already have been mentioned in the past, it may not be possible to decide what the elements of <body> are (definitions or expressions) until after expanding them using the syntax definitions provided.

Yes, an implementation would need to expand before checking

for errors.

-- 

Alex

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