write-bytevector, write & co. Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 10:24 UTC)
Re: write-bytevector, write & co. Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 10:33 UTC)
Re: write-bytevector, write & co. Daphne Preston-Kendal (16 Aug 2020 10:37 UTC)
Re: write-bytevector, write & co. Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 10:44 UTC)
Configuring read and write for syntax extensions Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 11:04 UTC)
Re: Configuring read and write for syntax extensions Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2020 11:46 UTC)
Re: Configuring read and write for syntax extensions Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 11:55 UTC)
Re: Configuring read and write for syntax extensions Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 11:59 UTC)
Re: Configuring read and write for syntax extensions Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 12:06 UTC)
Re: Configuring read and write for syntax extensions Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 12:25 UTC)
User-defined writers and recursive write Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 12:38 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: User-defined writers and recursive write Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 13:32 UTC)
Re: Configuring read and write for syntax extensions Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 12:26 UTC)
Re: Configuring read and write for syntax extensions Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 12:33 UTC)
Re: Configuring read and write for syntax extensions Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 12:50 UTC)
Re: Configuring read and write for syntax extensions Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2020 12:32 UTC)
Re: Configuring read and write for syntax extensions Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 12:35 UTC)
Re: Configuring read and write for syntax extensions Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 12:44 UTC)
Re: Configuring read and write for syntax extensions Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2020 12:53 UTC)
Re: Configuring read and write for syntax extensions John Cowan (17 Aug 2020 16:58 UTC)

Re: Configuring read and write for syntax extensions Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 16 Aug 2020 12:32 UTC

Am So., 16. Aug. 2020 um 14:26 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>:
>
> Ideally we would have 1:1 correspondence between port syntax settings
> and #! directives. Any setting could be represented by a #! directive
> and vice versa.

One has to get this matched to #!fold-case and #!no-fold-case.

Moreover, a reader directive like #!fantastic-scheme may enable and/or
disable quite a lot of flags.

So, we won't get a 1:1 correspondence here. Nevertheless, we should
look for some equally comprehensible mapping.

> Anyway, as things stand, #! is always followed by an identifier. So the
> Scheme representation of the port settings could simply be a list of
> symbols that are currently enabled.

How do you want to turn off a setting "frobnicated-pairs"? Through
"#!no-frobnicated-pairs"?