Help with simple macro transformation

[Ryan Kramer]

I'm 95% sure I've done this before, but for some reason I am really stuck right now. Given

(rearrange ([(a b c) 1]
            [(d e) 2]))

I would like any kind of shape containing [a 1] [b 1] [c 1] [d 2] [e 2]. Any kind of nesting should be fine as long as the ids are matched up 1:1 with the numbers. I've tried variants of the following but always run in to "incompatible ellipsis" problems:

(define-syntax-rule (rearrange [(id ...) body] ...)
  '(([id body] ...)
    ...))

Can this be done with patterns, or do I need to use quasisyntax splicing and list manipulation?

Larger context: I am making a table of proc-ids and proc-bodies. Some procs share the same bodies, so I want to be able to write [(a b c) shared-body], but eventually I need to get to [a shared-body] ...

[Ryan Kramer]

Gah, of course it's possible with patterns. For some reason I just didn't think of matching `(id rest ...)`

(define-syntax (rearrange stx)
  (syntax-case stx ()
    [(_ [(id rest ...) body]
        more ...)
     #'(cons '[id body]
             (rearrange [(rest ...) body]
                        more ...))]
    [(_ [() body]
        more ...)
     #'(rearrange more ...)]
    [(_)
     #'(list)]))