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

Re: Literals vs Quasi-literals (Was: SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters)

On 11/11/2012 11:08 PM, Shiro Kawai wrote:
Srfi-10 has number of shortcomings, but most of them
come from having the true literal status---that is,
if you want to get a user-defined object by just
(read)-ing back from its external representation, you
need to run a constructor in read anyway.  One possible
approach to fix it would be introducing some formal
distinction in read phase and compile/execution phase.

A general mechanism where you can modify or extend the reader
syntax using directives would be nice.

If you give up the true literal behavior, you're fixing
a different problem.  That is perfectly fine.  I just don't
want the reader of srfi-108 to be confused that it addresses
the issues of srfi-10.

Absolutely.  I'll try to re-phrase this,

Again, I think naming it with 'datum' or 'literal' is misleading,
for they don't behave as pure datum nor pure literal.
Maybe <extended-constructor-expression> or something?)

SRFI-107 uses 'xml-constructor'.  Perhaps used 'named-constructor'
for SRFI-108 and 'string-constructor' for SRFI-109?
	--Per Bothner
per@xxxxxxxxxxx   http://per.bothner.com/