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.
Alan Manuel Gloria: > I personally dislike #!srfi-105, but I won't actively oppose it. I'm no fan of the marker either. But in my mind *adoption* is the measure that matters. If including a marker in the spec will "make the medicine go down" then we need to do it. Hopefully in 10 years this marker's support will be a fossil in old readers :-). > Perhaps we should just generally encourage SRFI-105-by-default Oh, definitely. > , but > suggest that writers of Scheme code should use #!srfi-105 explicitly > if portability across Scheme's is a concern. I think we should make an even weaker statement: "Applications may include this marker before using any curly-infix expressions, typically near the top of a file." If, as we hope, everyone implements it anyway, then applications won't need the marker for portability... so let's not hamstring them with the requirement that they MUST do it. --- David A. Wheeler