On 03/13/2013 07:22 PM, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> It does, but even if I modified head I would not expect it
> to do what you want. A ". x" by itself returns just "x" in other cases,
> so for consistency, adding a rule about "." in head would
> still create an additional (...).
Ah right - I see.
>
> But that's okay, because I think what you want is:
> define-library
> !  example grid
> !  export make rows cols ref each rename(put! set!)
> !  import scheme(base)
> !  .
> ! <*
> ! ;stuff
> *>
I don't think I'd have thought of this, but it's good to know it's possible.
>
> Or, just:
> define-library . <*
> example grid
> export make rows cols ref each rename(put! set!)
> import scheme(base)
> ;stuff
> *>
This makes the most sense to me, I'll put it in the draft revision I'm
writing.
>
>
> If constructs like this are common:
> !  .
> ! <*
> ...
> *>
>
> Then we could argue that "\\" after "." is reasonable, e.g.:
> !  . \\ <*
> ...
> *>
>
> However, I do worry that the sequence ". \\ <*" completely fails
> the "it's obvious what it means" test.
Yes I agree, and given the stuff above I don't think we need it.

Thanks,
Dave