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

Re: Please update 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.

Per Bothner:
> 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