(Previous discussion continued)
Re: SRFI-109 (string quasi-literals) candidate John Cowan 27 Mar 2013 03:06 UTC

Re: SRFI-109 (string quasi-literals) candidate John Cowan 27 Mar 2013 03:06 UTC

Per Bothner scripsit:

> >Under "Enclosed (unquoted) expressions" the statement that & is used
> >for two different purposes is just confusing: it's used for *many*
> >different purposes.

This comment also applies to SRFI 108.

> This one I haven't resolved yet.  For one things I'd like to trying
> implementing in Kawa whatever syntax we end up on.

Oh, absolutely.

> Does anyone else have an opinion?  Is '!' a good character to mark the
> end-token?  Any chance we might want to use '!'  for internationalized
> strings instead?

I think it's good, and I don't think we want it for i18n.

> What about SRFI-108 - should we allow a user-defined end-token there
> as well?  One might think so for consistency, but there may be some
> ambiguity issues.

SRFI 109 lexical syntax is for strings, where we can make good use of
flexible delimiters.  SRFI 108 is for objects, typically not strings.
I'd say yes for 109, no for 108.

> What do you think of the way I changed [the definition of tagname]?

I'm good with it, except that I think you should define nested-comment,
intraline-whitespace, line-ending, letter, digit, and hex-digit explicitly
rather than by reference to R7RS.

It was dreary and wearisome.  Cold clammy winter still held sway in this
forsaken country.  The only green was the scum of livid weed on the dark
greasy surfaces of the sullen waters.  Dead grasses and rotting reeds loomed
up in the mists like ragged shadows of long-forgotten summers.
        --"The Passage of the Marshes"          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan