optional user-specified end-delimiters
Per Bothner
(16 Apr 2013 19:32 UTC)
|
Re: optional user-specified end-delimiters
John Cowan
(16 Apr 2013 21:46 UTC)
|
Re: optional user-specified end-delimiters
Per Bothner
(16 Apr 2013 23:25 UTC)
|
Re: optional user-specified end-delimiters
John Cowan
(17 Apr 2013 06:41 UTC)
|
Re: optional user-specified end-delimiters Per Bothner (17 Apr 2013 18:03 UTC)
|
Re: optional user-specified end-delimiters
John Cowan
(17 Apr 2013 18:08 UTC)
|
Re: optional user-specified end-delimiters Per Bothner 17 Apr 2013 18:01 UTC
On 04/16/2013 11:41 PM, John Cowan wrote: > The more I think about these, the less I think any of them are all that > useful. XML are what it is (and so is LaTeX and other self-delimiting > markup schemes), but I don't think their ideas need to be pervasive: the > increasing popularity of JSON (which is just S-expressions with braces) > over XML shows that. > > I am not one to say "Well, it's bad for the unaided user, but it's > all right if you have the right tools", but I think paren-counting > (brace-counting, etc.) tools are a price we already pay in Scheme, and I > think we should avoid further complicating something that is already very > bell-and-whistle-filled with all these alternative delimitation schemes. > Let's just stick to "} matches { and ] matches [" and that's all there > needs to be to it. In that case I will things more-or-less as-is. I've uploaded revised versions to: http://per.bothner.com/tmp/srfi-108/srfi-108.html http://per.bothner.com/tmp/srfi-109/srfi-109.html The only substantial change is allowing "." as tagname-subsequent. I think these are finalization-candidates. -- --Per Bothner xxxxxx@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/