Cleaning up SRFI 105 MUSTard (mostly)
John Cowan
(28 Sep 2012 00:25 UTC)
|
Re: Cleaning up SRFI 105 MUSTard (mostly)
David A. Wheeler
(29 Sep 2012 18:46 UTC)
|
Re: Cleaning up SRFI 105 MUSTard (mostly)
David A. Wheeler
(29 Sep 2012 18:58 UTC)
|
Re: Cleaning up SRFI 105 MUSTard (mostly)
John Cowan
(29 Sep 2012 19:27 UTC)
|
Re: Cleaning up SRFI 105 MUSTard (mostly)
David A. Wheeler
(29 Sep 2012 20:42 UTC)
|
Re: Cleaning up SRFI 105 MUSTard (mostly)
Per Bothner
(29 Sep 2012 21:00 UTC)
|
Re: Cleaning up SRFI 105 MUSTard (mostly)
David A. Wheeler
(30 Sep 2012 00:26 UTC)
|
Re: Cleaning up SRFI 105 MUSTard (mostly) David A. Wheeler (30 Sep 2012 00:31 UTC)
|
Re: Cleaning up SRFI 105 MUSTard (mostly) David A. Wheeler 30 Sep 2012 00:31 UTC
John Cowan: ... > For "We encourage implementations to *always* implement curly-infix > expressions" read "Implementations SHOULD implement c-expressions". Done. > For "Applications should" read "Applications SHOULD". Waiting to see if there are other comments on the MUST/SHOULD markers. > For "We recommend that portable applications do *not*" read "Applications > SHOULD NOT". Done. > For "We encourage implementations' *default* invocation" read "An > implementation's default implementation SHOULD", and remove ", but this > is not required". Done. > As mentioned earlier, remove the sentence about "curly-foo" Plan to; want to see if there are other comments. > What is said about defining "nfx" should also be said about > "$bracket-access$". Done. > For "(curly-infix-read . port)" read something like "curly-infix-read > with an optional port argument. Done. I used [port] instead of ". port". > Add the following boilerplate to the top of the specification: > > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" > in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. Done. > I recommend the use of small capital letters rather than > italics for these key words: this can be achieved in HTML with > <small>MUST</small>, <small>SHOULD</small>, etc. or in HTML/CSS with > <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">must</span>, etc. Currently leaning towards <em>SHOULD</em> instead of <small>...</small>, due to concerns about what <small> might do, but I'm curious what others say. --- David A. Wheeler