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 Per Bothner 22 Feb 2013 00:36 UTC
On 02/05/2013 12:15 AM, Per Bothner wrote: > n 02/04/2013 11:54 PM, John Cowan wrote: >> I like the idea of |$[$| and |$]$| as internal delimiters, but not >> their spellings. Some Schemes may not have escapes; in R6RS mode it >> would be necessary to write these as $\x5B;$ and $\x5D;$ respectively, >> which are deeply unintuitive. I suggest therefore that you adopt the >> entity names from <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-entity-names> and go with >> $lsqb$ and $rsqb$ respectively. That is only one character longer than >> the ||-escaped form, and is probably easier overall to type. > > Yes, that is a good point. I have considered $<$ and $>$ which have the > advantage of more readably indicating "bracketed-ness", but those > symbols should perhaps be saved for something else. Maybe: > $<sqb$ and $>sqb$. I'm currently leaning towards $<<$ and $>>$. Thus &URI{http://&[example-host]/} would be read as: ($construct$:URI "http://" $<<$ example-host $>>$ "/") These are standard R5RS symbols that don't need quoting; they're short and reasonably human-readable/-writable; and they're unlikely to conflict with anything else. As mentioned before, both symbols would be predefined to "". -- --Per Bothner xxxxxx@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/