Re: match questions

[andy%hobbes@ads.ARPA (Andy Cromarty)]

I agree with Jinx and CPH.  Matching, special handling of optionals, etc.
can be convenient when they happen to provide what you want, but let's get
more experience with matching facilities within Scheme, and more reports 
of such experience from more people, before we commit to a specific
construct (if any is needed at all).

If we have a standard macro definition capability, and especially if
we allow any token at all to be redefinable (including, e.g., LET),
then there's no need to build matching facilities into the language
definition.  Advocates of alternative matching and destructuring
techniques can build the macro packages and distribute them informally
to entice the rest of us to adopt their view of the importance of
such constructs as a part of the language.

					asc