R6RS versus the pattern operators
John Cowan
(17 Aug 2020 12:55 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(17 Aug 2020 13:15 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Fwd: R6RS versus the pattern operators
John Cowan
(17 Aug 2020 13:38 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(17 Aug 2020 13:48 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
John Cowan
(17 Aug 2020 14:59 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(17 Aug 2020 15:27 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
John Cowan
(17 Aug 2020 15:48 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(17 Aug 2020 15:53 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
John Cowan
(17 Aug 2020 17:03 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Shiro Kawai
(17 Aug 2020 17:21 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Shiro Kawai
(17 Aug 2020 20:21 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Felix Thibault
(17 Aug 2020 22:22 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Shiro Kawai
(17 Aug 2020 22:35 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(18 Aug 2020 05:55 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(24 Aug 2020 14:02 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Felix Thibault
(27 Aug 2020 00:45 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(27 Aug 2020 07:50 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Lassi Kortela
(17 Aug 2020 13:52 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators Adam Nelson (17 Aug 2020 14:41 UTC)
|
+1 for the regex-style * and + matchers, that seems more understandable and portable. Isn't = already used for something else in `match`, though? On 8/17/20 9:52 AM, Lassi Kortela wrote: >> The user can either pick ..1 and be incompatible with R6RS, or pick >> __1 and be incompatible with other WCS implementations. It will >> probably be easier to fix other WCS implementations than R6RS. > > Since `...` and `..1` and `..=` are analogous to the regexp matchers > `*`, `+` and `=` would it work to use those one-character identifiers? > Those have got to be permitted in all Scheme implementations since > they are needed for standard number procedures. > > In SRFI 204 there's one more: > > ..* k j between k and j matches, where k and j are integers. > > But that seems like a new invention in the SRFI? It's not in the Chibi > match manual at > <http://snow-fort.org/s/gmail.com/alexshinn/chibi/match/0.9.0/index.html>. > > The identifier `...` is nice since it's already used in syntax-rules, > but if `...` is not portable it could have `*` as an alias.