Re: Glitch in literal syntax
William D Clinger 08 Feb 1999 23:21 UTC
Instead of chewing up 2 of the 18 remaining English letters whose
meaning following an octathorpe (#) is not yet specified in Scheme,
and creating a minor incompatibility and permanent ambiguity by
giving a second meaning to one of the six letters whose meaning is
already specified in that context, why not consume just one more
octathorpe character (say 'v' for vector) as follows:
#vs8(...)
#vu8(...)
#vs16(...)
#vu16(...)
#vs32(...)
#vu32(...)
#vs64(...)
#vu64(...)
#vf32(...)
#vf64(...)
Then some future SRFI for vectors of vectors of floating point numbers
(or whatever) will have a notation that can be extended for the purpose,
and we won't have to have this same discussion all over again for the
second time, redundantly.
Will