On 3/6/19 11:57 AM, Lassi Kortela wrote:
>> That sounds great.  You could make something up, or we could all look for the worst example we find while working on our examples from existing SRFIs.
>
> This definition of 'arg-ands' from SRFI 51 is pretty gnarly:
>
>    <code class="syntax def">(<span>arg-ands</span>
>      [common &lt;<var class="opt">caller</var>&gt;]
>      ([&lt;<var class="opt">caller</var>&gt;]
>      &lt;<var class="opt">variable</var>&gt;
>      &lt;<var class="opt">expr</var>&gt;
>      <var class="rest">...</var>)
>      <var class="rest">...</var>)</code>
>    (syntax)
>
> Then again, it's pretty twisty without the <var>s too.

If the "<" and ">" are part of the argument names, then:
     &lt;<var class="opt">caller</var>&gt;
should be:
     <var class="opt">&lt;caller&gt;</var>

If they're just styling, then it should be:
     <var class="opt">caller</var>

--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/