moving on
Taylor Campbell
(07 Dec 2003 19:48 UTC)
|
Re: moving on
Taylor Campbell
(07 Dec 2003 20:13 UTC)
|
Re: moving on bear (07 Dec 2003 21:53 UTC)
|
Re: moving on
Taylor Campbell
(08 Dec 2003 00:04 UTC)
|
Re: moving on
Brian Mastenbrook
(08 Dec 2003 00:04 UTC)
|
Re: moving on
Alfresco Petrofsky
(07 Dec 2003 23:27 UTC)
|
Re: moving on
Taylor Campbell
(14 Dec 2003 18:52 UTC)
|
Re: moving on bear 07 Dec 2003 21:53 UTC
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Taylor Campbell wrote: > >On Dec 7, 2003, at 2:48 PM, Taylor Campbell wrote: > >> Comments, and what are some thoughts on whether to use (...) or (... >> ...) for the base of the ellipsis generator, which I mentioned in >> passing a while ago? (Argument for (...): it makes much more sense. >> Argument for (... ...): it's what everyone uses already.) > >Another idea: the ellipsis token is a dotted list whose elements are >all ... and whose terminator is .... An empty dotted ellipsis list >acts as ellipsis; a dotted ellipsis list pair expands to its CDR. No, I think this is too complicated. We're talking more about this as syntax than as list structure anyway; I think that making people think in terms of list structure would just confuse the issue. My recommendation is keep it simple: ... (... ...) (... ... ...) (... ... ... ...) etc, to match existing practice. Bear