[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Minor last-minute issues
On 09/18/2012 05:03 PM, David A. Wheeler wrote:
No. Kawa maps:
[foo bar] to ($bracket-list$ foo bar)
I think we should *not* require a particular definition for unprefixed [...].
It's a bit weird to have a (reader) definition for F0[F1 F2] but not [F1
Many Schemes use that as a synonym for (...), and I want to minimize syntactic changes
The convention seems to be to use [...] for a "clause" - i.e.
where [...] is used definitions and other forms for grouping of
things that aren't expressions. One could implement these forms so
they recognized ($bracket-list ...) - though I'm not sure that
is worth the effort. (I tried to do so, but gave up without
getting very far.)
(such differences would be a source of bugs).
If we're talking about forms purely within curly-braces, or
in a library that is marked with #!curly-index, then I'm not
sure there needs to be a conflict.
x[foo bar] to ($bracket-apply$ x foo bar)
I'm not fond of $bracket-apply$ - it's a little ugly
But perhaps its ugliness is a virtual [sic]; people are unlikely to use it as an identifier.
And being compatible with a previous convention - especially if people actually use it in real code - has its pluses.
Is there any code that depends on $bracket-apply$? How much?
Probably little or no user code - just Kawa internals.