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 scripsit: > The intent is that curly-infix will be used not only in Scheme, but also in > other Lisplikes: CL, Arc, Clojure, ELisp, etc. We only started in Scheme > because it seemed to be the only one with any kind of public > peer-review process for extending the language (namely, the SRFI > process). We'll get to the others once we locate some kind of public > process for extending those languages. There really aren't any, alas. You can implement curly-infix in fully portable CL, so you can release it as a Quicklisp package. The other Lisps are single-implementation (okay, Guile has an Elisp implementation), so releasing implementations for them is the Right Thing too, provided it can be done -- I don't know those languages well enough to say. > For Scheme as of R6RS, [x ...] means (x ...), so that's what SRFI-105 > (which is specific to Scheme) says. R6RS imposes this requirement, but R7RS does not. See http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/BracketsBraces for details of which Schemes do what with brackets. You can't just say "Brackets mean what they mean in Scheme", because there is and will be no unified meaning. Since you're providing a full implementation modulo the change to the readtable, you need to make some decision for the purposes of that implementation, and it's not clear to me what it should be. The advantage of Kawa's $bracket-list$ convention is that it can be mapped to treating  like (), but it can be mapped to something else too, at the will of the user. -- But you, Wormtongue, you have done what you could for your true master. Some reward you have earned at least. Yet Saruman is apt to overlook his bargains. I should advise you to go quickly and remind him, lest he forget your faithful service. --Gandalf John Cowan <cowan@xxxxxxxx>