Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (09 Jan 2005 22:35 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Robby Findler (09 Jan 2005 22:39 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (09 Jan 2005 22:44 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Robby Findler (09 Jan 2005 22:46 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (09 Jan 2005 22:54 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Robby Findler (10 Jan 2005 00:59 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (10 Jan 2005 01:16 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (10 Jan 2005 01:56 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (10 Jan 2005 02:27 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Robby Findler (10 Jan 2005 02:43 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Bradd W. Szonye (10 Jan 2005 00:05 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (10 Jan 2005 01:02 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Bradd W. Szonye (10 Jan 2005 17:03 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (10 Jan 2005 20:23 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Bradd W. Szonye (10 Jan 2005 20:59 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (10 Jan 2005 21:13 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (10 Jan 2005 22:15 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (10 Jan 2005 22:20 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (10 Jan 2005 23:07 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (11 Jan 2005 14:20 UTC)

Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie 10 Jan 2005 01:15 UTC


> From: Robby Findler <xxxxxx@cs.uchicago.edu>
> It's just that #; working at the read-level is what makes it useful to me.
> If it works at the lexical level it would be strange. For example,
> parenthesis are typically individual lexemes, so this:
>
>   (a #;(a) b)
>
> would go to:
>
>   (a a) b)
>
> rather than:
>
>   (a b)

No more than:

   (a '(a) b) => (a (quote a)) b)

Which is doesn't as ' applies the lexically following <s-exp>,
thereby by applying the same conventions:

   (a #;(a) b) => (a {remove (a)} b) => (a b)

Just as:

   (a '(a) b) => (a {quote (a)} b) => (a (quote (a)) b)

Where {} denote operations/transforms applied by the "reader"