Re: updated srfi-109 - cleaning up discussion items Per Bothner 26 Feb 2013 17:43 UTC

On 02/26/2013 07:00 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> 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.

Actually it's "three characters shorter" plus I think it's a little
easier to read and to write.

Especially beneficial when writing examples with named characters.
For example instead of:
   to write '<code>&amp;</code>' in HTML do '<code>&amp;amp;</code>'
one can write:
   to write '<code>&&</code>' in HTML do '<code>&&amp;</code>'
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/