[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions
Alan Manuel Gloria scripsit:
> 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).
An implementation might, for example, want to provide nfx as a macro
which looks for user-written precedence definitions and does the Right
Thing with them. This ought not to be forbidden. Just like any
other identifier provided by an implementation, the user would be
free to redefine it, after all.
Don't be so humble. You're not that great. John Cowan
--Golda Meir cowan@xxxxxxxx