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)
|
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? No. > 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." Agreed. -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org 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