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

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

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 108 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 108 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

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/