Re: updated srfi-109 - cleaning up discussion items John Cowan 26 Feb 2013 04:14 UTC

Per Bothner scripsit:

> (1) "Discussion: It may be useful to allow an option to use a
> user-defined token, following a marker character - for example!"

I think this is a very useful option, though if you want to leave it out
I'm fine with that too.  I prefer the second (symmetrical) syntax.

> 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.

That is the HTML/SGML rule, and I think it is exactly right.

> (4) "Discussion: The above example is a bit ugly; it might be reasonable
> to allow comments before the line-start marker:"

Frankly, I think this blows either way.  I think the balance between
regularity and convenience should tip on the side of regularity here.

> 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?


> I.e. &\n for newline.

That has slightly more merit, but not that much.

> (7) "Discussion: It may be reasonable to move format support to a
> separate SRFI, where we could also cover string localization."


John Cowan
Lope de Vega: "It wonders me I can speak at all.  Some caitiff rogue
did rudely yerk me on the knob, wherefrom my wits yet wander."
An Englishman: "Ay, belike a filchman to the nab'll leave you
crank for a spell." --Harry Turtledove, Ruled Britannia