Group Email Manager

login signup
#!curly-infix vs. #!srfi-105 David A. Wheeler (10 Sep 2012 01:09 UTC)
Re: #!curly-infix vs. #!srfi-105 Shiro Kawai (10 Sep 2012 18:29 UTC)
Re: #!curly-infix vs. #!srfi-105 Alan Manuel Gloria (12 Sep 2012 03:38 UTC)
Re: #!curly-infix vs. #!srfi-105 David A. Wheeler (14 Sep 2012 03:26 UTC)
Re: #!curly-infix vs. #!srfi-105 Alan Manuel Gloria 12 Sep 2012 03:38 UTC 
+1 for #!curly-infix

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Shiro Kawai <xxxxxx@lava.net> wrote:
> +1 for #!curly-infix
>
> From: "David A. Wheeler" <xxxxxx@dwheeler.com>
> Subject: #!curly-infix vs. #!srfi-105
> Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2012 21:09:55 -0400 (EDT)
>
>> On the guile-devel mailing list I got another input preferring #!curly-infix over #!srfi-105.
>>
>> Sjoerd van Leent Privé (...svanleent *AT* gmail.com) said:
>>> I believe it is information versus information. I believe strongly that
>> a notion of #!curly-infix would be more readable than #!srfi-105. The
>> latter doesn't explain at all why the file looks drastically different,
>> whereas a notion of #!curly-infix (or #!sweet-scheme, #!scheme for the
>> same reason) is more understandable.
>>
>> Other thoughts?
>>
>> --- David A. Wheeler
>>