[bitc-dev] Removing defmacro -- ancillary consequences

[Mark Miller]

Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> With the removal of defmacro, we have four bits of syntax that may want
> to be restored:
> 
>     (type-qualify e t)   =>  e:t
>     (struct-ref e ident) =>  e.ident
>     (sequence-ref e ndx) =>  e[ndx]
>     (deref e)            =>  e^
> 
> My personal inclination is NOT to support the lisp-style forms, but
> another valid view would be to say that the lisp-style forms are
> canonical and the inline forms are convenience syntax.
> 
> Opinions?

I favor what you explain as "another valid view", if this means the abstract 
syntax is then faithfully captured by the concrete S-expression syntax. Are 
these the only potentially non-S-expression cases currently?

-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

     Cheers,
     --MarkM