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

Re: Please update SRFI-105



On 10/30/12, David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear editors: Please post this update to SRFI-105.
>
> Nothing like an announced deadline to get last-minute comments in :-).
>
> This version has a bunch of minor stuff, again, it does *NOT* change the
> semantics of the specification at all:
>       - Fix URL for Paul Graham comment about infix being "natural"
>       - Clarify text noting that the mappings like e(...) MUST NOT be
> applied
>         if there's a space between e and the open paired character.
>       - Add MUST for recursion left-to-right, to clarify that this is
> required
>       - Make mapping discussion of f{...} a little more consistent
>       - Note that datum comments are from SRFI-62, R6R7, and R7RS draft 6
>       - Add {...} around example {#1=f(#1#)}
>       - Emphasize in rationale that curly-infix allows ANY symbol to be
> used
>         as an infix operator (that's the difference, not that you can use
> it)
>       - Move text about symbols in infix.plt, to make it clearer
>       - A few minor style improvements
>       - Add text about $nfx$ and $bracket-apply$ based on a
>         guile-devel post by Mark H. Weaver on 2012-10-26
>
>
> --- David A. Wheeler
>

Looks like you overlooked this e-mail:

--

Here's another bit that seems a bit confusing...

The approach does allow references to variable names with &#8220;-&#8221;
embedded in them without effort,
but the names must be spelled differently (and thus inconsistently)
by replacing every &#8220;-&#8221; with &#8220;_&#8221;.
Thus, variables like &#8220;list-ref&#8221; must
be spelled as &#8220;list_ref&#8221; inside the infix.plt notation
without effort.

In particular the last "without effort" there seems to be something
that got left behind in some edit.

I also think that the bit "The approach does allow references to
variable names with '-' embedded in them without effort," should be
"little effort" instead, as it's not actually *without* effort, users
having to translate - to _ after all.

--

At the very least, it seems the bit "must be spelled as 'list_ref'
inside the infix.plt notation without effort." doesn't seem to scan
well.  I'm not sure what you mean here by the "without effort" clause;
I suspect it's a mistake, but maybe you meant something else?

Sincerely,
AmkG