updated srfi-109 - cleaning up discussion items Per Bothner (26 Feb 2013 02:36 UTC)
|
Re: updated srfi-109 - cleaning up discussion items
John Cowan
(26 Feb 2013 04:14 UTC)
|
Re: updated srfi-109 - cleaning up discussion items
Per Bothner
(26 Feb 2013 08:12 UTC)
|
Re: updated srfi-109 - cleaning up discussion items
John Cowan
(26 Feb 2013 15:00 UTC)
|
Re: updated srfi-109 - cleaning up discussion items
Per Bothner
(26 Feb 2013 17:43 UTC)
|
updated srfi-109 - cleaning up discussion items Per Bothner 26 Feb 2013 02:36 UTC
I put an updated version of SRFI-109 here: http://per.bothner.com/tmp/srfi-109/srfi-109.html Before I ask the editors to update srfi.schemers.org, I'd like a see if anyone has any options on some open "Discussion" item, before I remove them. See the draft for context: (1) "Discussion: It may be useful to allow an option to use a user-defined token, following a marker character - for example!" I'm leaning towards dropping this, though I might keep a mention as a possible future or implementation extension. (1a) If someone has a preferred syntax for such an extension, that would be useful to know. (2) "Discussion: How about initial and final newlines?" Not sure what the right answer is here. The Kawa implementation includes the initial newline in the result string; however that feels wrong. I.e. (define onetwothree &{ &|one two three &|uno dos tres }) This seems like the natural way to write a 2-line string; having to add an intial line-continuation marker &- seems ugly. Perhaps we can change the rule for &| - it deletes any prior whitespace in that line. It *also* deletes the prior newline if this is an initial newline. (4) "Discussion: The above example is a bit ugly; it might be reasonable to allow comments before the line-start marker:" What do people think? It makes the parsing a little more complicated, but it seems useful. And would we allow multi-line nested comments? (define abc &{ &| line1 #|there is some special about this, so we need a multi-line comment |# &| line2 &| line3}) This looks complicated. My inclination is to drop this for now; it could be a feature of a future extension. (5) "Discussion: Similar to Scheme character literals, a single-character could name that character." I.e. "&" followed by a single character followed by ";" is equivalent to that literal character. Is this convenient enough to make up for adding yet more weird syntax? (6) "Discussion: Should we also support the standard string single-character slash escapes in some form?" I.e. &\n for newline. (7) "Discussion: It may be reasonable to move format support to a separate SRFI, where we could also cover string localization." I think we certainly want to defer string localization (I don't have time to deal with it right now), and I think we want to make format specifiers an optional feature. I'm not sure whether and how to mention these optional/future features. I think it makes sense to mention then in the context of a rationale, to point to future directions. -- --Per Bothner xxxxxx@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/