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/