Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum"

Show/hide message thread

Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum" David A. Wheeler (07 Aug 2013 00:17 UTC)

Re: Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum" John Cowan (07 Aug 2013 04:56 UTC)

Re: Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum" David A. Wheeler (07 Aug 2013 11:39 UTC)

Re: Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum" John Cowan (07 Aug 2013 12:51 UTC)

Re: Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum" David A. Wheeler (07 Aug 2013 23:56 UTC)

Re: Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum" David A. Wheeler (08 Aug 2013 01:58 UTC)

Re: Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum" John Cowan (13 Aug 2013 21:36 UTC)

Re: Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum" David A. Wheeler (14 Aug 2013 00:41 UTC)

Re: Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum" David A. Wheeler (20 Aug 2013 00:19 UTC)

Re: Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum" Alan Manuel Gloria (22 Aug 2013 00:37 UTC)

Re: Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum" Alan Manuel Gloria (08 Aug 2013 03:29 UTC)

Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum" David A. Wheeler 07 Aug 2013 00:17 UTC

I intend to change SRFI-110 to REQUIRE support for "#|...|#" (SRFI-30)
and "#;datum" (SRFI-62), by making them MUSTs.

Rationale:
- These are already built into R6RS and R7RS, so NOT
   requiring them might be surprising to (modern) users.
- The more MUSTs, the more that users can depend on.
- If someone goes to the trouble of implementing sweet-expressions
  I think they'd be willing to implement these.

Any thoughts?

--- David A. Wheeler