[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Roger Kirchner writes:
>Kent M Pitman said that there are other possible interpretations of
>(DEFINE (((...) ...) ...) ...)
>besides as an extended template for procedure definition.
>What would be the objections to making this interpretation standard?
Your interpretation is already standard, though not essential; see
page 18 of MIT AI Memo 848. Though other interpretations are possible,
they would be in conflict with the Revised Revised Report.
The extended syntax began in MIT Scheme and was picked up by MacScheme
and PC Scheme. T2 doesn't support it. I don't know about Chez Scheme