On 09/18/2012 05:03 PM, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> Per Bothner:
>> No. Kawa maps:
>> [foo bar] to ($bracket-list$ foo bar)
>
> I think we should *not* require a particular definition for unprefixed [...].

It's a bit weird to have a (reader) definition for F0[F1 F2] but not [F1
F2].

>  Many Schemes use that as a synonym for (...), and I want to minimize syntactic changes

The convention seems to be to use [...] for a "clause" - i.e.
where [...] is used definitions and other forms for grouping of
things that aren't expressions.  One could implement these forms so
they recognized ($bracket-list ...) - though I'm not sure that
is worth the effort.  (I tried to do so, but gave up without
getting very far.)

> (such differences would be a source of bugs).

If we're talking about forms purely within curly-braces, or
in a library that is marked with #!curly-index, then I'm not
sure there needs to be a conflict.

>
>> x[foo bar] to ($bracket-apply$ x foo bar)

> I'm not fond of $bracket-apply$ - it's a little ugly
> But perhaps its ugliness is a virtual [sic]; people are unlikely to use it as an identifier.

Exactly.

> And being compatible with a previous convention - especially if people actually use it in real code - has its pluses.
>
> Is there any code that depends on $bracket-apply$?  How much?

Probably little or no user code - just Kawa internals.
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/