Re: lisp v. scheme macros

[Benderjg2@aol.com]

Mike,

Try the following paper:
(sbib:article
  (sbib:&author "R. Kent Dybvig, Robert Hieb, and Carl Bruggeman")
  (sbib:&title "Syntactic abstraction in Scheme")
  journal:lsc
  (sbib:&volume "5, 4")
  (sbib:&pages "83-110")
  (sbib:&month "December")
  (sbib:&year "1993")
  (sbib:link
   (sbib:&url "http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~dyb/papers/syntactic.ps.gz")
   ps-format))

(forgive the pseudo-bibtex notation ;)

Also, Kent Dybvig's "The Scheme Programming Langugage, Second Edition", which 
is available online has good examples of using both syntax-rules and 
syntax-case: http://www.scheme.com/tspl2d/index.html

- Jim

In a message dated 8/17/01 2:06:09 AM Central Daylight Time, 
mvanier@bbb.caltech.edu writes:


> > That's partly because DEFINE-SYNTAX tends to go (but doesn't have to)
> > with SYNTAX-RULES, and SYNTAX-RULES sucks.  I don't understand the
> > logic behind it (well, I can see why it was in R4, but not R5), but it
> > baffles me that the RnRS collective codified SYNTAX-RULES into a
> > standard in place of the far superior SYNTAX-CASE.  Anyway, Matthew
> > has now implemented SYNTAX-CASE.  Use the CVS version and you will be
> > surprised no longer.
> > 
> > Shriram
> > 
>
> Is there a document describing the difference?
>
> Mike