Re: optional user-specified end-delimiters Per Bothner 17 Apr 2013 18:01 UTC

On 04/16/2013 11:41 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> 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.

In that case I will things more-or-less as-is.

I've uploaded revised versions to:
http://per.bothner.com/tmp/srfi-108/srfi-108.html
http://per.bothner.com/tmp/srfi-109/srfi-109.html
The only substantial change is allowing "." as tagname-subsequent.
I think these are finalization-candidates.
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/