Re: and-let* is not composable?

[Panicz Maciej Godek]

If you, or the other people who are confused by syntax-case, can point
to the parts of the manual that confuse you, so we can clear them up, I
think we'd all appreciate it.

Fundamentally, syntax-case shouldn't be harder to use than define-macro
99% of the time, if you remember

As a little addendum to that topic, I just ran across Matthew Flatt's

presentation of Racket macro system, http://www.infoq.com/presentations/racket,

where he points to a quite good introduction to "define-syntax" macros

by Greg Hendershott: http://www.greghendershott.com/fear-of-macros/

And now that my head is clearer on this regard, I think it is confusing

to call them "syntax-case" macros, because "syntax-case" is rather

auxiliary than essential for defining that sort of macro.

The order of presentation in the manual resembles the one that Hendershott

criticises, namely: first, the syntax-rules macros are presented, which are an

epiphany once you comprehend them, and then syntax-case is presented as

a different type of macro. However, syntax-case is only a pleasant way to

destructure syntactic information passed to a transformer, and the same

effect could be achieved without using it, by using some more explicit 

procedures like syntax->datum. (Furthermore, Hendershott explains

more specifically how do the syntax objects differ from raw scheme forms).

So I believe that at least placing a link to than explanation in the manual

could be a great help for beginners.

Best regards,

M.