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

Re: updated SRFI-108



On 02/04/2013 05:24 PM, John Cowan wrote:
A possible solution/compromise is to *require* that "&name[initial-exp]"
be followed by a braced-delimited literal part, if necessary empty:
   &name[initial-exp]{}
This avoids the incompatibility.

I can live with that.  I have yet to be convinced once and for all that
initial-expressions are actually as useful as all that.  I'd rather
leave them as an optional extension.
...
Probably, but the difference is one of whitespace only, and it makes
     (foo &condition [bar 1 2])
and
     (foo &condition[bar 1 2])
differ very radically.  If initial & was rare, I'd probably feel better
about this, but it's common in SRFI 35 or R6RS code that deals with
conditions.

Fair enough.  I made this change in
http://per.bothner.com/tmp/srfi-108/srfi-108.html

I can make initial expressions an optional extension if it is likely
to lead to more implementations supporting SRFI-108.  Implementors,
let me know.
--
	--Per Bothner
per@xxxxxxxxxxx   http://per.bothner.com/