Re: updated SRFI-108 Shiro Kawai 05 Feb 2013 02:04 UTC

>From: John Cowan <xxxxxx@mercury.ccil.org>
Subject: Re: updated SRFI-108
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 20:24:34 -0500

> Probably, but the difference is one of whitespace only, and it makes
>
>     (foo &condition [bar 1 2])
>
> and
>
>     (foo &condition[bar 1 2])
>
> differ very radically.  If initial & was rare, I'd probably feel better
> about this, but it's common in SRFI 35 or R6RS code that deals with
> conditions.

I second that.  Technically I can live with that, for I could have
some sort of reader switch if I adopt the srfi in Gauche.  But I got
a feeling that I would wish we had #& instead of & in long run.

--shiro