SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters
Per Bothner
(10 Nov 2012 16:51 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters
Shiro Kawai
(11 Nov 2012 01:06 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters
Per Bothner
(11 Nov 2012 03:47 UTC)
|
Literals vs Quasi-literals (Was: SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters)
Shiro Kawai
(12 Nov 2012 07:20 UTC)
|
Re: Literals vs Quasi-literals (Was: SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters)
Per Bothner
(12 Nov 2012 17:08 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters
John Cowan
(18 Nov 2012 21:22 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters Per Bothner (18 Nov 2012 21:50 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters
John Cowan
(24 Nov 2012 06:55 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters
Michael Sperber
(11 Dec 2012 17:27 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters Per Bothner 18 Nov 2012 21:49 UTC
On 11/18/2012 01:22 PM, John Cowan wrote: > I strongly prefer XML-style with braces. Both forms use both braces and brackets, so I'm unclear whether you mean "XML-style with braces for literal text" or "XML-style with braces for escaped expressions". The "xml-style" (red) in the proposal is the latter. If we go with xml-style I would prefer that as it is what the Kawa implementation currently does for XML literals. (In a pinch I could support both [] and {} to enclose expression in Kawa, deprecating the {} syntax. I don't know how many people actually use Kawa XML-literals.) > This use of braces will not > conflict with SRFI-105, nor will it conflict with the existing uses of > brackets as alternative parens. (In Chicken, braces are also alternative > parens, unfortunately, but that can be changed.) I don't believe either "xml-style" or "scribble-style" (or certain other possible variations) directly conflict with SRFI-105 or brackets as alternative parens. In Scribble-style braces are used for (quasi-)literal text immediately following a '@' (SRFI-109) or '@NAME' (SRFI-108). The former doesn't conflict with SRFI-105 at all. The latter only conflicts if '@NAME' is a valid standalone token followed by an SRFI-105 curly-form. Scriblle-style SRFI-108 does not propose that standalone @NAME be valid - it has to be immediately followed by either (EXPR...) or [EXPR...] or {TEXT}. Likewise, square brackets are only special following '@' (and optionally a format-specifier). Likewise, in XML-style {} or [] are only significant following '&', so other uses shouldn't be a conflict. Of course one could argue about readability or error-proneness - some variations may be better than others. -- --Per Bothner xxxxxx@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/