optional user-specified end-delimiters
Per Bothner
(16 Apr 2013 19:32 UTC)
|
Re: optional user-specified end-delimiters
John Cowan
(16 Apr 2013 21:46 UTC)
|
Re: optional user-specified end-delimiters
Per Bothner
(16 Apr 2013 23:25 UTC)
|
Re: optional user-specified end-delimiters John Cowan (17 Apr 2013 06:41 UTC)
|
Re: optional user-specified end-delimiters
Per Bothner
(17 Apr 2013 18:03 UTC)
|
Re: optional user-specified end-delimiters
John Cowan
(17 Apr 2013 18:08 UTC)
|
Re: optional user-specified end-delimiters John Cowan 17 Apr 2013 06:41 UTC
Per Bothner scripsit: > I assume you mean: > &!END{content}END! Yes, that's what I meant. But on reflection I agree that this is bad. > >I am very much against this, for reasons given earlier: "}example" > >should not be distinct from "} example", since "}" is a delimiter. > > Not sure I understand why. (I don't remember seeing the earlier > reasons.) I don't see "}" listed as a <delimiter> in either R6RS > or R7RS draft 8. That's because it is undefined altogether. It doesn't make sense to define something as a delimiter and then say it doesn't actually have any function. But in the context of these SRFIs, { and } clearly act as delimiters, not as identifier characters. > Regardless, whether it is a <delimiter> is irrelevant - the question > is what can follow the "}". Your suggested syntax does have > "}TAG!" different from "} TAG!". Yes, and since terminal ! is part of regular Scheme identifiers (though not tags as defined here), it doesn't make sense to postpose it. > &!label{content}!label > &example{content}example > &example!label{content}!label > &example!label{content}example!label ; probably less useful The more I think about these, the less I think any of them are all that useful. XML are what it is (and so is LaTeX and other self-delimiting markup schemes), but I don't think their ideas need to be pervasive: the increasing popularity of JSON (which is just S-expressions with braces) over XML shows that. I am not one to say "Well, it's bad for the unaided user, but it's all right if you have the right tools", but I think paren-counting (brace-counting, etc.) tools are a price we already pay in Scheme, and I think we should avoid further complicating something that is already very bell-and-whistle-filled with all these alternative delimitation schemes. Let's just stick to "} matches { and ] matches [" and that's all there needs to be to it. -- John Cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org "You need a change: try Canada" "You need a change: try China" --fortune cookies opened by a couple that I know