updated SRFI-108
Per Bothner
(04 Feb 2013 00:21 UTC)
|
Re: updated SRFI-108 John Cowan (04 Feb 2013 08:16 UTC)
|
Re: updated SRFI-108
Per Bothner
(04 Feb 2013 20:29 UTC)
|
Re: updated SRFI-108
Per Bothner
(04 Feb 2013 20:43 UTC)
|
Re: updated SRFI-108
John Cowan
(05 Feb 2013 01:24 UTC)
|
Re: updated SRFI-108
Shiro Kawai
(05 Feb 2013 02:11 UTC)
|
Re: updated SRFI-108
Per Bothner
(05 Feb 2013 02:24 UTC)
|
Re: updated SRFI-108
John Cowan
(05 Feb 2013 07:54 UTC)
|
Re: updated SRFI-108
Per Bothner
(05 Feb 2013 08:15 UTC)
|
Re: updated SRFI-108
John Cowan
(05 Feb 2013 15:42 UTC)
|
Re: updated SRFI-108
Per Bothner
(22 Feb 2013 00:36 UTC)
|
Re: updated SRFI-108
John Cowan
(22 Feb 2013 03:10 UTC)
|
Re: updated SRFI-108 John Cowan 04 Feb 2013 08:16 UTC
Per Bothner scripsit: > I've settled on the &name[initial-exp]{text} syntax, which > is a hybrid of the XML syntax (in using & rather than @) > and the Scribble syntax (in using a single prefix character > rather than #&, and in the use of brackets/braces). It continues to disturb me that "&name[initial-exp]" already has a meaning in R6RS, such that this is not an upward compatible extension. I still strongly prefer #& to plain &, especially as identifiers beginning with & are actually in use in R6RS. In my test suite, Racket, SISC, and STklos use #& as a literal syntax for a box containing the following S-expression, and a few Schemes treat it as identifier syntax, but most raise a syntax error, which makes it a reasonable extension point. -- Newbies always ask: John Cowan "Elements or attributes? http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Which will serve me best?" xxxxxx@ccil.org Those who know roar like lions; Wise hackers smile like tigers. --a tanka, or extended haiku