Re: syntax closures

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

BTW.

Of cause if you read the doc's for srfi-72 you will see a whole
different machinery that brings many features, they explicitly states
6 facts in the abstract for which I adress one in the code.

On the other hand when they try to sell it it they just uses examples
for the case for witch I try to implement a solution for. So in this
light I would say that I practically cover 90% of srfi-72 intention.
But from a theoretical standpoint I would just say 10%.

/Stefan

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> wrote:
> Stefan Israelsson Tampe <address@hidden> writes:
>> Let's call it guile-srfi-72, In the end it is a srfi-72 simulator [...]
>
> I'm pretty sure this is also false.  One of the main points of SRFI-72
> is the improved hygiene algorithm, which is quite different than psyntax
> in its details.  Unless I'm mistaken, you have picked out only one small
> aspect of SRFI-72 that happens to be relevant to what you're doing.
>
> Therefore, I don't think it should be called SRFI-72 either.
>
>       Mark