Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Alpert Herb Petrofsky
(11 Jan 2005 21:03 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Bradd W. Szonye
(11 Jan 2005 21:19 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Paul Schlie
(11 Jan 2005 22:29 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Taylor Campbell
(12 Jan 2005 00:10 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting Bradd W. Szonye (12 Jan 2005 00:13 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Bradd W. Szonye
(12 Jan 2005 00:16 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Paul Schlie
(17 Jan 2005 03:03 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Alpine Petrofsky
(12 Jan 2005 00:22 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Paul Schlie
(12 Jan 2005 01:45 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Paul Schlie
(12 Jan 2005 02:18 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Paul Schlie
(12 Jan 2005 14:11 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting
Paul Schlie
(12 Jan 2005 14:29 UTC)
|
Re: Formal spec; implementation; nesting Bradd W. Szonye 12 Jan 2005 00:12 UTC
Taylor Campbell wrote: > In response to all of the hubbub regarding nested S-expression > comments, I have to wonder: how often do you write such nestings? > Does it really make so much of a difference that you consider 'fixing' > a slightly non-intuitive yet not very common use of S-expression > comments more significant than fundamentally changing Scheme's syntax > to be sensitive to whitespace tokens? Is it really so significant as > to warrant inhibition of simple recursive-descent S-expression > parsers? I don't think it's a huge problem, just somewhat counterintuitive, as I explained to Al. Also, the bit about whitespace was a based on a simple misunderstanding of Scheme lexical elements, already cleared up. -- Bradd W. Szonye http://www.szonye.com/bradd