Re: [Chicken-hackers] plain lambdas as syntax transformers

[John Cowan]

Felix scripsit:

> I know this is going to be controversial, but I'd like to un-deprecate
> the use of plain procedures as syntax-transformers. The way it is
> currently implemented, using a procedure can be seen as a simple
> default (er-transformer). I find the use of transformer-constructors
> clutters up the code, adds unnecessary typing and indentation, and is
> more or less meaningless for newbies. 

I too tend to use syntax-rules almost all the time, ir-transformer rarely,
and er-transformer never.  I like always specifying a transformer, as
I believe it clarifies rather than cluttering the code.  In addition,
who knows: perhaps some day sc-transformer and rsc-transformer will
be added to Chicken (over your dead body, I know!).  Omitting the
transformer exposes something that I consider an internal detail of
Chicken that 99.99% of the time I don't care about.  As a default,
it is the wrong default.

-- 
John Cowan  address@hidden   http://ccil.org/~cowan
Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy.  Dennett and Bennett are well-known.
Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett.
There is also one Dummett.  By their works shall ye know them.  However, just as
no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly
known by his works.  Indeed, Bummett does not exist.  It is part of the function
of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him.