Unicode lambda
Lassi Kortela
(12 May 2019 10:19 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Shiro Kawai
(12 May 2019 11:18 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Lassi Kortela
(12 May 2019 11:40 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Lassi Kortela
(12 May 2019 11:50 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Shiro Kawai
(12 May 2019 12:06 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(12 May 2019 12:11 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Lassi Kortela
(12 May 2019 12:23 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Lassi Kortela
(12 May 2019 13:23 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Lassi Kortela
(12 May 2019 13:46 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
John Cowan
(12 May 2019 14:20 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Lassi Kortela
(12 May 2019 14:38 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Lassi Kortela
(12 May 2019 14:55 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
John Cowan
(12 May 2019 15:00 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Lassi Kortela
(12 May 2019 15:20 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Shiro Kawai
(12 May 2019 18:42 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Lassi Kortela
(12 May 2019 19:43 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
John Cowan
(12 May 2019 22:29 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Shiro Kawai
(13 May 2019 10:48 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Lassi Kortela
(14 May 2019 08:25 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(14 May 2019 08:50 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda Lassi Kortela (14 May 2019 10:10 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Lassi Kortela
(14 May 2019 10:59 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Lassi Kortela
(14 May 2019 12:35 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Lassi Kortela
(14 May 2019 13:09 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Lassi Kortela
(14 May 2019 14:04 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Shiro Kawai
(14 May 2019 19:18 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Vincent Manis
(14 May 2019 22:01 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Lassi Kortela
(20 May 2019 09:21 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(21 Oct 2019 14:20 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Shiro Kawai
(21 Oct 2019 17:19 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
John Cowan
(21 Oct 2019 17:39 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(21 Oct 2019 18:43 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
John Cowan
(21 Oct 2019 23:27 UTC)
|
Encoding declarations
Lassi Kortela
(22 Oct 2019 08:39 UTC)
|
Re: Encoding declarations
John Cowan
(22 Oct 2019 20:52 UTC)
|
#! directives, general and specific
Lassi Kortela
(22 Oct 2019 09:11 UTC)
|
Re: #! directives, general and specific
John Cowan
(22 Oct 2019 20:27 UTC)
|
Re: #! directives, general and specific
Lassi Kortela
(22 Oct 2019 20:43 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(13 May 2019 08:50 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Lassi Kortela
(13 May 2019 10:27 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Per Bothner
(12 May 2019 14:17 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode lambda
Peter
(12 May 2019 15:06 UTC)
|
> I like the idea of allowing arbitrary s-exps following "#!" (i.e. > "#!(precision 25)" instead of "#!precision=25") so that "#!" can be > parsed as datum comments "#;". Glad to hear that :) > Note that Scheme ports are stateful. Directives like "#!fold-case" > change the port's state for subsequent read (and principally also for > write) operations. If something like "#!(encoding ...)" is ever > standardized it should change the state of the port as well and should > affect not only "read" but also "read-char", "write-char", etc. True. Most likely an #!(encoding ...) would be too clever for our own good :) The purpose of any in-file encoding tag is to give the encoding for the whole file so the file can then be re-read from the start with that encoding. That's conceptually different from "read after this point using encoding X". In particular, mixing #!(encoding ...) with ASCII-incompatible encodings like UTF-16 would have weird semantics. > Independently of the encoding question, we should have another SRFI > that specifies how the Scheme reader handles "#!" directives. Agreed. > I am thinking of a parameter object bound to a procedure that is called > with the port and the s-exp following the "#!" directive whenever the > reader encounters a "#!" directive. The procedure should be able to > tail-call a success or a failure procedure. On such a SRFI, we can > portably build many reader extensions. That would be simple and generic, but we should probably also have a standard way to dispatch on the symbol in the #!(symbol ...) form. It could be some kind of symbol->procedure mapping, or we could have a chain of #! handler procedures and a handler could defer to the next handler in case it doesn't recognize the form. If it ever makes sense to have more than one directive combined into one #!(...) form then we will need a syntax like this: #!((thing1 value1) (thing2 value2) (thing3 value3)) Or something like this: #!(many-things (thing1 value1) (thing2 value2) (thing3 value3)) It seems weird and excessive now, but maybe not in the future. > This SRFI should also expose a > way to inspect and modify the state of ports (in particular whether > case-folding is enabled, but also being able to access column and row > counters makes sense). No opinion on this one. It sounds reasonable. Based on this whole discussion, we could have all of these SRFIs: - Extensible #!(list ...) read syntax - Float precision as #!(precision ...) - Extensible (declare-file ...) and/or #!(declare-file ...) form - In-file encoding tag (no unproblematic approach found so far) - Unicode lambda Quite a lot for one thread :D