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

Re: #!curly-infix vs. #!srfi-105

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.

To: dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: #!curly-infix vs. #!srfi-105
From: Shiro Kawai <shiro@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:26:36 -1000 (HST)
Cc: srfi-105@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: srfi-105@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <E1TAsVf-0006y6-8p@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <E1TAsVf-0006y6-8p@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

+1 for #!curly-infix

From: "David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: #!curly-infix vs. #!srfi-105
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2012 21:09:55 -0400 (EDT)

> On the guile-devel mailing list I got another input preferring #!curly-infix over #!srfi-105.
> 
> Sjoerd van Leent Privé (...svanleent *AT* gmail.com) said:
>> I believe it is information versus information. I believe strongly that
> a notion of #!curly-infix would be more readable than #!srfi-105. The
> latter doesn't explain at all why the file looks drastically different,
> whereas a notion of #!curly-infix (or #!sweet-scheme, #!scheme for the
> same reason) is more understandable.
> 
> Other thoughts?
> 
> --- David A. Wheeler
>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: #!curly-infix vs. #!srfi-105
  - From: Alan Manuel Gloria

References:
- #!curly-infix vs. #!srfi-105
  - From: David A. Wheeler

Prev by Date: #!curly-infix vs. #!srfi-105
Next by Date: Re: #!curly-infix vs. #!srfi-105
Previous by thread: #!curly-infix vs. #!srfi-105
Next by thread: Re: #!curly-infix vs. #!srfi-105
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread