Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

External representation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (10 Sep 2015 15:21 UTC)
Re: External representation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (10 Sep 2015 15:22 UTC)
Re: External representation Arthur A. Gleckler (10 Sep 2015 15:24 UTC)
Re: External representation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (10 Sep 2015 20:10 UTC)
Re: External representation Arthur A. Gleckler (10 Sep 2015 20:44 UTC)
Re: External representation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (11 Sep 2015 07:36 UTC)
Re: External representation John Cowan (11 Sep 2015 13:04 UTC)
Re: External representation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (11 Sep 2015 13:25 UTC)
Re: External representation Per Bothner (11 Sep 2015 14:05 UTC)
Re: External representation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (11 Sep 2015 14:21 UTC)
Re: External representation Kevin Wortman (11 Sep 2015 19:10 UTC)
Re: External representation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (11 Sep 2015 21:48 UTC)
Re: External representation Shiro Kawai (12 Sep 2015 02:04 UTC)
Re: External representation John Cowan (10 Sep 2015 16:30 UTC)
Re: External representation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (10 Sep 2015 18:12 UTC)
Re: External representation John Cowan (10 Sep 2015 19:02 UTC)
Re: External representation Per Bothner (10 Sep 2015 21:25 UTC)
Re: External representation John Cowan (10 Sep 2015 21:52 UTC)

Re: External representation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 10 Sep 2015 20:10 UTC

"Arthur A. Gleckler" <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> writes:

> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer
> <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     I think it would be very useful to specify external representation
>     (reader syntax) for hash tables, but I want to make sure I'm not
>     adding anything unreasonable to the spec. External representation
>     is a big deal since it changes the lexical syntax.
>
> Speaker in my role as a reader, not the editor, I like the idea, but
> would suggest making it a separate SRFI since it is independent of the
> other API issues under discussion.

Hmm, that's true, but at the same time I'd like this to be a complete
hash table specification that could theoretically have come after
section "6.9 Bytevectors" in R7RS-small, as "6.10 Hashtables".

Do you think it would hinder adoption that the reader syntax is
mandatory, or lead to other problems?

Taylan