SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters
Per Bothner
(10 Nov 2012 16:51 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters
Shiro Kawai
(11 Nov 2012 01:06 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters
Per Bothner
(11 Nov 2012 03:47 UTC)
|
Literals vs Quasi-literals (Was: SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters)
Shiro Kawai
(12 Nov 2012 07:20 UTC)
|
Re: Literals vs Quasi-literals (Was: SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters)
Per Bothner
(12 Nov 2012 17:08 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters
John Cowan
(18 Nov 2012 21:22 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters
Per Bothner
(18 Nov 2012 21:50 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters
John Cowan
(24 Nov 2012 06:55 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters Michael Sperber (11 Dec 2012 17:27 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters Michael Sperber 11 Dec 2012 17:27 UTC
Per Bothner <xxxxxx@bothner.com> writes: > If you have a preference as to which syntax works best, I'd like to > hear it. Ideally try to mull the various alternatives, and perhaps > play with them using pencil and paper. Do you prefer XML-style syntax, > Scribble-style syntax, or something completely different? For now just > reply t this message; if we get too many messages we may try a poll. While I prefer writing Scribble syntax to the XML syntax in SRFI 108/109, you're doing something different from Scribble, namely embedding a syntax into Scheme rather than presenting an alternative. For this, #& seems more in line with other parts of Scheme, and less confusing for Scribble afficionados. -- Regards, Mike