[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions
- To: srfi-105@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions
- From: Alan Manuel Gloria <almkglor@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:33:36 +0800
- Delivered-to: srfi-105@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=nJW4JONUoddOWSrqkNpUgbmIkKU/G3oewSYwM6iqGqs=; b=j3VbfAHKkDeTqQ/4KHFmQZAFUiBQYhVMNhZ/NEo0RzpLP7P9CJa9Tw3gul/jnF5aWY OxQsdeFBMLN5P/AS0hl86beJ35WlyBLIRO2nPZV4XyiJ8B1wyuBFand5kQ5bO3yODLKN +eTz7A9r6lWxlbaz8h51igp7io+Jth60fH5IIhOW4Ky2M0V6AQPA6B4YBmSG5jA2ksL8 cwIk4UotNYUuUZoPXzGFfioCkHa+X+d1XKJGee+JmX4cHpYmJujsPAXp30lpnk6i/N1R ER2qPzyMPk9Hgn6mpPH4nnTIWSxvJsZ+oTCrt5ni9WEEYqb2/qw5pTzLE0WyfxYJ2+bE orKA==
> You give a good justification for why precedence isn't supported, yet
> the specification doesn't enforce this by requiring an error be
> signaled for ambiguous expressions. Furthermore, the draft allows
> implementations to implement any precedence behavior using NFX. If
> SRFI-105 is going to be an alternate syntax for Scheme, it should
> force uniformity among supporting implementations. Less radical than
> not allowing ambiguous expressions would be having left-associative be
> the default precedence.
The point of `nfx` is to be a hook for the *end user* of the implementation,
**not** the implementation.
> Furthermore, the draft allows
> implementations to implement any precedence behavior using NFX.
The draft specifically makes no allowance for the *Scheme*
implementation to implement `nfx`: it makes no mention that an
implementation *may*, *should*, or *must* provide `nfx`, only that
its reader insert that symbol.
Perhaps we'll clarify in the SRFI that an implementation *must
not* provide `nfx` (with the exception that a *future* SRFI *may*
mandate that implementations provide `nfx` at some level).