feedback
soo
(28 Mar 2004 11:58 UTC)
|
Re: feedback
Shiro Kawai
(28 Mar 2004 13:01 UTC)
|
Re: feedback
soo
(08 Apr 2004 16:11 UTC)
|
Re: feedback
Paul Schlie
(28 Mar 2004 18:04 UTC)
|
Re: feedback
soo
(30 Mar 2004 10:28 UTC)
|
Re: feedback
Paul Schlie
(30 Mar 2004 14:32 UTC)
|
Re: feedback Paul Schlie (30 Mar 2004 14:38 UTC)
|
Re: feedback
Paul Schlie
(30 Mar 2004 14:59 UTC)
|
Re: feedback
Paul Schlie
(30 Mar 2004 15:24 UTC)
|
Re: feedback
Paul Schlie
(30 Mar 2004 19:16 UTC)
|
Re: feedback
soo
(31 Mar 2004 13:46 UTC)
|
Re: feedback
Paul Schlie
(31 Mar 2004 14:58 UTC)
|
Sorry, last formatted list object should not have been quoted: => "(10 3 +) #e+12.000 a str (3 #\\s \"string\")" > From: Paul Schlie <xxxxxx@comcast.net> > Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:32:21 -0500 > To: <srfi-54@srfi.schemers.org> > Subject: Re: feedback > Resent-From: srfi-54@srfi.schemers.org > Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:32:35 +0200 (DFT) > > Please consider: > > - personally believe fmt-xxx should produce a string (or lazy stream) where > a quoted scheme object, when displayed and then read back, would would be > equivalent, if not quoted, it's simply evaluated and then correspondingly > treated. which I suspect would be more generally useful and intuitive: > > - Per your example below: > > (fmt-str a (fmt-num 12 -t s: '+ f: 3) " " #\a " str " '(3 #\s "string")) > > => "(10 3 +) #e+12.000 a str '(3 #\\s \"string\")" > > note: where fmt parameters have the form of: > -X if parameter-less, i.e. -t for display type prefix > X: if parameterized, i.e. s: <sign> or f: <fraction-digits> > > - the value of fmt-xxx potentially yielding/consuming ports (or streams), > is that it enables lazily evaluated arbitrary length hierarchically > specified format specifications; which would likely be otherwise > potentially physically impractical to achieve. > > (which format does not enable) > > Thanks, -paul- > >> From: soo <xxxxxx@tilde.co.kr> >> ... >> In SRFI-48 mailing list, Marc Feeley said: >> ... >> To make printing easier, a general purpose function called "print" >> could be added with this definition: >> (define (print . lst) (for-each display lst)) >> allowing >> (print "list: " (field '(one "two" 3))) >> ... >> >> Likewise, we can make a procedure: >> (define (cat . objects) >> (get-output-string >> (let ((string-port (open-output-string))) >> (for-each (lambda (object) >> (display object string-port)) >> objects) >> string-port))) >> >> Examples: >> (cat 12 " " #\a " str " '(3 #\s "string")) >> (fmt 12 " " (fmt #\a) " str " (fmt '(3 #\s "string"))) >> => "12 a str (3 s string)" >> >> (define a '(10 3 +)) >> (cat a (fmt 12 10 3 '+) " " #\a " str " (fmt '(3 #\s "string") write)) >> (cat a (apply fmt 12 a) " " #\a " str " (fmt '(3 #\s "string") write)) >> (fmt a (fmt 12 10 3 '+) " " (fmt #\a) " str " (fmt '(3 #\s "string") write)) >> => "(10 3 +) #e+12.000 a str (3 #\\s \"string\")" >> >> | - as observed in the earlier srfi-48 discussions, it may even be better >> | (both more general, and efficient) to define that resulting format >> functions >> | yield string-ports, rather than strings; which could then even be made more >> | general if formatting functions themselves were able to accept >> string-ports, >> | such that more complex hierarchically defined formats may be defined as >> | desired. >> >> FMT manipulates not string ports but strings. >> >> If we have a procedure like `open-output-string?', we can make FMT to append >> the strings in the string ports to the resulting string like <string> >> parameter. >> >> Additionally, even though FMT is not fully extensible, If <output-port> >> parameter is added to FMT, it can print the resulting string like FORMAT, and >> If <input-port> parameter is added, `file->string' function can be added, and >> If <separator> parameter is added like '(#\, 3), comma separator function can >> be added. >> >> | - lastly, although personally I too would like format specifications to be >> | as succinct as possible, I suspect that all format specifications >> containing >> | more than a single specifier should be tagged with at least a single letter >> | semi-descriptive symbol to both give a hint as to what the specified >> | controls, and to enable them to be only defined as required in arbitrary >> | ordered lists as convenient to the author, and/or to enable their more >> | flexible construction. >> >> I'll consider it, if conflicts occur among the format specifications. >> Anyway, I think it leaves some room for consideration. >> >> | With a little luck, the above is hopefully also be consistent with your >> | goals for this srfi as well? >> >> | -paul- >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- >> INITERM >> >