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

[Felix]

From: John Cowan <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] plain lambdas as syntax transformers
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 05:47:24 -0400

> 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.

So wwhat would be the right default, if I may ask?


cheers,
felix