External representation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (10 Sep 2015 15:21 UTC)
Re: External representation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (10 Sep 2015 15:22 UTC)
Re: External representation Arthur A. Gleckler (10 Sep 2015 15:24 UTC)
Re: External representation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (10 Sep 2015 20:10 UTC)
Re: External representation Arthur A. Gleckler (10 Sep 2015 20:44 UTC)
Re: External representation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (11 Sep 2015 07:36 UTC)
Re: External representation John Cowan (11 Sep 2015 13:04 UTC)
Re: External representation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (11 Sep 2015 13:25 UTC)
Re: External representation Per Bothner (11 Sep 2015 14:05 UTC)
Re: External representation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (11 Sep 2015 14:21 UTC)
Re: External representation Kevin Wortman (11 Sep 2015 19:10 UTC)
Re: External representation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (11 Sep 2015 21:48 UTC)
Re: External representation Shiro Kawai (12 Sep 2015 02:04 UTC)
Re: External representation John Cowan (10 Sep 2015 16:30 UTC)
Re: External representation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (10 Sep 2015 18:12 UTC)
Re: External representation John Cowan (10 Sep 2015 19:02 UTC)
Re: External representation Per Bothner (10 Sep 2015 21:25 UTC)
Re: External representation John Cowan (10 Sep 2015 21:52 UTC)

Re: External representation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 11 Sep 2015 13:25 UTC

John Cowan <xxxxxx@mercury.ccil.org> writes:

> Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer scripsit:
>
>> Still, I guess I'll make it optional, along with weak/ephemeral
>> hashtables, so there's still some utility of the SRFI for those who
>> don't like all of it.
>
> I have no problem with making it optional.  But I suggest that in that
> case you adopt Racket's lexical syntax rather than a minor change from
> it, so there will at least be some implementation.  I would guess that
> Larceny is unlikely to adopt it, for instance, since Will's paper implies
> that the Larceny parser is not table-driven.

You're right, making it so close to yet different from Racket's syntax
was silly I guess.

Taylan