|
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 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