[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Please update SRFI-105
> But I can't see why you'd want to accidentally invoke nfx,
> which will happen if it's in the "user's namespace" (to use C/C++
> terminology). If somebody wants to re-bind the meaning of
> c-expressions, then redefining a $nfx$ macro is easy enough, but don't
> hijack an identifier the user might be using innocently.
John Cowan also prefers an "unusual" macro. This has been "nfx" for years, and more user-visible than the bracket stuff, so if its name changes at all, "$nfx$" would be better (as it'd be less of a change, while still making it "highly unlikely to be accidental").
This would be a broad, beyond-Scheme change, so I'll need to bring this up on the readable-discuss list.
--- David A. Wheeler