Re: #!curly-infix vs. #!srfi-105

Show/hide message thread

#!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 David A. Wheeler 14 Sep 2012 03:26 UTC

Alan Manuel Gloria:
> +1 for #!curly-infix

Okay, I think there's a pretty clear preference for #!curly-infix over #!srfi-105.
Alan Manuel Gloria,  Shiro Kawa, and Sjoerd van Leent Privé.

I can live with #!srfi-105, but I think #!curly-infix is far more descriptive, so I prefer #!curly-infix too.  And if it ever gets adopted into R*RS, it'd be better if it could keep its marker (if it needs one).

It's true that #!srfi-105 makes it easier to see where it "comes from".  But I think that today people would just go to search engine and quickly find out what it means, so while that is an important need, I think either one works for that purpose.

So unless I hear some additional argument, I intend to switch markers.

--- David A. Wheeler