Re: nested define syntax

[Maciej Stachowiak]

On 07Nov2001 01:16AM (+0100), Dirk Herrmann wrote:
> 
> Obviously, the (define ((foo x y ...) r s ...) ...) form is none of the
> forms a definition _should_ have according to R5RS, although I admittedly
> don't know if this means that is strictly correct to speak of 'violation'
> or 'being non-conformant'.
> 

There are two senses of being conformant to a standard. An
implementation can be conforming, meaning it will execute all
conforming code as specified by the standard. Or code in the language
can be conforming, meaning it will run on any conforming
implementation. The "should" in the standard is referring to the
second sense. It does not mean a conforming implementation should not
add compatible extensions to this syntax. 

A priori, there is nothing wrong with compatible extensions. I think
this one is useful and fits into the design of Scheme reasonably well.

Also, having this feature does not make the interpreter
`incompatible'. It might make user code that uses it incompatible with
other implementations, but there are many guile features in that
category.

Regards,

Maciej