Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions Alan Manuel Gloria (26 Aug 2012 21:38 UTC)
Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions John Cowan (26 Aug 2012 22:04 UTC)
Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions Alan Manuel Gloria (26 Aug 2012 22:23 UTC)
Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions John Cowan (26 Aug 2012 22:39 UTC)
Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions David A. Wheeler (27 Aug 2012 00:04 UTC)
Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions Alan Manuel Gloria (26 Aug 2012 22:11 UTC)

Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions John Cowan 26 Aug 2012 22:39 UTC

Alan Manuel Gloria scripsit:

> The implementation *must not*, by default, bind the symbol `nfx`
> to a procedure or macro; this symbol is reserved for use by library
> writers and application writers.

That still seems unnecessary to me.  In a library-based implementation,
it makes no difference; in a flat namespace, the name can be overridden.

--
As you read this, I don't want you to feel      John Cowan
sorry for me, because, I believe everyone       xxxxxx@ccil.org
will die someday.                               http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --From a Nigerian-type scam spam