[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 105 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 105 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

David A. Wheeler scripsit:

> It was hard enough coming up with a unique name.  prefix-expressions =>
> p-expressions sounds like "pee-expressions", and function-expressions
> => f-expressions sounds like "f*n-expressions".  "m" and "s" are
> already taken.  I'm willing to entertain alternatives (got any?),
> but I'm not really excited about creating yet another name.  It took
> a long discussion to get to that one. Besides, if the biggest problem
> is the name, life is good :-).

If you go from three layers (c-exprs, n-exprs, sweet-exprs) to just two
(c-exprs that may contain n-exprs, sweet-exprs), then you don't need a
separate name for n-exprs.

If you understand,                      John Cowan
   things are just as they are;         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
if you do not understand,               cowan@xxxxxxxx
   things are just as they are.