Re: Please update SRFI-105
David A. Wheeler
(29 Oct 2012 21:33 UTC)
|
Re: Please update SRFI-105 Alan Manuel Gloria (30 Oct 2012 01:58 UTC)
|
Re: Please update SRFI-105
David A. Wheeler
(30 Oct 2012 16:30 UTC)
|
Re: Please update SRFI-105
Jens Axel Søgaard
(30 Oct 2012 18:54 UTC)
|
infix.plt
David A. Wheeler
(31 Oct 2012 03:17 UTC)
|
Re: Please update SRFI-105
Mark H Weaver
(30 Oct 2012 06:52 UTC)
|
Re: Please update SRFI-105
David A. Wheeler
(30 Oct 2012 16:25 UTC)
|
Re: Please update SRFI-105
Mark H Weaver
(30 Oct 2012 07:10 UTC)
|
Re: Please update SRFI-105 Alan Manuel Gloria 30 Oct 2012 01:51 UTC
On 10/30/12, David A. Wheeler <xxxxxx@dwheeler.com> wrote: > Dear editors: Please post this update to SRFI-105. > > Nothing like an announced deadline to get last-minute comments in :-). > > This version has a bunch of minor stuff, again, it does *NOT* change the > semantics of the specification at all: > - Fix URL for Paul Graham comment about infix being "natural" > - Clarify text noting that the mappings like e(...) MUST NOT be > applied > if there's a space between e and the open paired character. > - Add MUST for recursion left-to-right, to clarify that this is > required > - Make mapping discussion of f{...} a little more consistent > - Note that datum comments are from SRFI-62, R6R7, and R7RS draft 6 > - Add {...} around example {#1=f(#1#)} > - Emphasize in rationale that curly-infix allows ANY symbol to be > used > as an infix operator (that's the difference, not that you can use > it) > - Move text about symbols in infix.plt, to make it clearer > - A few minor style improvements > - Add text about $nfx$ and $bracket-apply$ based on a > guile-devel post by Mark H. Weaver on 2012-10-26 > > > --- David A. Wheeler > Looks like you overlooked this e-mail: -- Here's another bit that seems a bit confusing... The approach does allow references to variable names with “-” embedded in them without effort, but the names must be spelled differently (and thus inconsistently) by replacing every “-” with “_”. Thus, variables like “list-ref” must be spelled as “list_ref” inside the infix.plt notation without effort. In particular the last "without effort" there seems to be something that got left behind in some edit. I also think that the bit "The approach does allow references to variable names with '-' embedded in them without effort," should be "little effort" instead, as it's not actually *without* effort, users having to translate - to _ after all. -- At the very least, it seems the bit "must be spelled as 'list_ref' inside the infix.plt notation without effort." doesn't seem to scan well. I'm not sure what you mean here by the "without effort" clause; I suspect it's a mistake, but maybe you meant something else? Sincerely, AmkG