The ". $" notation (was: Re: how useful are collecting lists?)
Alan Manuel Gloria
(18 Mar 2013 01:26 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation Shiro Kawai (18 Mar 2013 02:42 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
Alan Manuel Gloria
(18 Mar 2013 02:44 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
Shiro Kawai
(18 Mar 2013 04:45 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
David A. Wheeler
(18 Mar 2013 16:25 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
Alan Manuel Gloria
(19 Mar 2013 00:17 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
David A. Wheeler
(19 Mar 2013 03:28 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
Alan Manuel Gloria
(19 Mar 2013 05:52 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
David A. Wheeler
(19 Mar 2013 10:44 UTC)
|
Handling scomments after "."
David A. Wheeler
(19 Mar 2013 03:41 UTC)
|
Re: Handling scomments after "."
David A. Wheeler
(19 Mar 2013 04:12 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation (was: Re: how useful are collecting lists?)
David A. Wheeler
(18 Mar 2013 03:09 UTC)
|
>From: Alan Manuel Gloria <xxxxxx@gmail.com> Subject: The ". $" notation (was: Re: how useful are collecting lists?) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 09:26:04 +0800 > 1. Allow "foo . EOL INDENT x ..." ==> "(foo . (x ...))" > 2. Allow "foo . $ x ..." ==> "(foo x ...)" Is the latter "foo . $ x y ..." ==> "(foo x y ...)"? Because "$" is a valid R5RS identifier, we need to parse "foo . $ EOL" as a cons of 'foo and '$, correct? I'm a bit concerned that it might be confusing that: foo . ($ a b c) is foo . $ a b c but foo . $ $ a b c (The two '$' has different meanings!) But people may get used to it, after all. (I jumped in because Gauche has a '$' macro. That allows chaining function calls like Haskell's $ operator.) --shiro