Re: updated srfi-109 - cleaning up discussion items John Cowan 26 Feb 2013 15:00 UTC

Per Bothner scripsit:

> However, '&' remains.  We can support this one
> by the traditional mechanism of doubling:
>
> &{Smith && Wesson}  ==> "Smith & Wesson"
>
> as well as:
>
> &{Smith & Wesson}

We can do so, but I don't see much point in it.  Yet another deviation from
regularity needs a justification better than "It's two characters shorter",
and this one I think does not meet that bar.

--
Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before.
        --Nicholas van Rijn
                John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>
                    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan