On 28-Mar-2021, at 08:46, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The "define-?.*" can be simplified to just "define.*", but looking at > the tests is that the intent? From the tests it looks like "define[- ]" > is what the author wants, unless this is meant to also match > "(definements". Yes, you captured my intent correctly. Will fix it. > Has this been tested on some real-world scheme code? E.g. I have guile > installed locally, and it has really large top-level eval-when > blocks. These rules would jump over those to whatever the function above > them is. I do not have a large scheme codebase on my own, I usually use Racket, which is a much larger language with many more forms. Other Schemes like Guile also extend the language a lot, like in your example, eval-when is an extension provided by Guile (and Chicken and Chez), but not a part of the R6RS document when I searched its index. So the 'define' forms are the only one that I know would reliably be present across all schemes. But one can also make a case where some of these non-standard forms may be common enough that they are worth adding in. In that case which forms to include? Should we consider everything in the SRFI's[1]? Should the various module definitions of Racket be included? It's a little tricky to know where to stop. That being said, I will try to run this through more Scheme codebases that I can find and see if there are any forms that seem to show up commonly enough that they are worth including. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_Requests_for_Implementation
