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 <<var class="opt">caller</var>>] > ([<<var class="opt">caller</var>>] > <<var class="opt">variable</var>> > <<var class="opt">expr</var>> > <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: <<var class="opt">caller</var>> should be: <var class="opt"><caller></var> If they're just styling, then it should be: <var class="opt">caller</var> -- --Per Bothner xxxxxx@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/