The meaning of braces in various Schemes
John Cowan
(05 Sep 2012 06:24 UTC)
|
Re: The meaning of braces in various Schemes
David A. Wheeler
(05 Sep 2012 11:50 UTC)
|
Re: The meaning of braces in various Schemes
John Cowan
(05 Sep 2012 17:20 UTC)
|
Do we NEED a marker at all?
David A. Wheeler
(05 Sep 2012 13:25 UTC)
|
Re: Do we NEED a marker at all?
Jens Axel Søgaard
(05 Sep 2012 20:42 UTC)
|
Re: Do we NEED a marker at all?
Shiro Kawai
(06 Sep 2012 04:27 UTC)
|
Re: Do we NEED a marker at all? Alan Manuel Gloria (06 Sep 2012 12:36 UTC)
|
Re: Do we NEED a marker at all?
David A. Wheeler
(06 Sep 2012 13:07 UTC)
|
Re: Do we NEED a marker at all?
John Cowan
(06 Sep 2012 17:09 UTC)
|
Re: The meaning of braces in various Schemes
Donovan Kolbly
(07 Sep 2012 02:12 UTC)
|
Re: The meaning of braces in various Schemes
David A. Wheeler
(07 Sep 2012 03:41 UTC)
|
Re: Do we NEED a marker at all? Alan Manuel Gloria 06 Sep 2012 12:36 UTC
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Shiro Kawai <xxxxxx@lava.net> wrote: > Here's my thought. > > Suggesting #!srfi-105 marker doesn't mean you should mark every file > that uses srfi-105 with the marker. Some implementations may support > srfi-105 by default, and interpret {} as curly-infix notation without > the marker. If you *know* you use such implementations then you don't > need to bother to mark up your code by #!srfi-105 at all. > > However, some other implementations may need to switch interpretation > of {} file-by-file basis. Such implementation would add its own > extension to the switch. Gauche will for sure, and for the backward > compatibility, srfi-105 mode won't be the default, at least for > a while (because I know some production code relies on the current > interpretation of {} in Gauche). > > So, isn't it better that such implementations use the same marker, > instead of having different markers? Then, if you wish your code > to be extremely portable out-of-box, you add #!srfi-105 marker for > extra safety. Of course, you can still distribute your code without > the marker and just say "my code using srfi-105, please turn on the > extension if you run it on an implementation that doesn't support > it by default." > > If srfi-105 doesn't suggest the marker at all, the latter would be > the only choice. I think it is better to have another option. I personally dislike #!srfi-105, but I won't actively oppose it. Perhaps we should just generally encourage SRFI-105-by-default, but suggest that writers of Scheme code should use #!srfi-105 explicitly if portability across Scheme's is a concern.