Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? John Cowan 10 Apr 2013 01:56 UTC
David A. Wheeler scripsit: > "Implementations <em>MAY</em> provide the procedures > <var>curly-write</var>, <var>neoteric-write</var>, and/or <var>sweet-write</var> > as writers that can write c-expressions, n-expressions, and t-expressions respectively. I'd say forget sweet-write and go with curly-write and neoteric-write, and go ahead and use MUST modals for them, without overspecifying what they output. R7RS systems MUST provide curly-write{simple,shared} and neoteric-write-{simple,shared} as well. As long as there is a good reference implementation, there is no reason not to require these things. -- Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out. --Arthur C. Clarke, "The Nine Billion Names of God" John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>