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

Re: optional user-specified end-delimiters

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 04/16/2013 11:41 PM, John Cowan wrote:
The more I think about these, the less I think any of them are all that
useful.  XML are what it is (and so is LaTeX and other self-delimiting
markup schemes), but I don't think their ideas need to be pervasive: the
increasing popularity of JSON (which is just S-expressions with braces)
over XML shows that.

I am not one to say "Well, it's bad for the unaided user, but it's
all right if you have the right tools", but I think paren-counting
(brace-counting, etc.)  tools are a price we already pay in Scheme, and I
think we should avoid further complicating something that is already very
bell-and-whistle-filled with all these alternative delimitation schemes.
Let's just stick to "} matches { and ] matches [" and that's all there
needs to be to it.

In that case I will things more-or-less as-is.

I've uploaded revised versions to:
The only substantial change is allowing "." as tagname-subsequent.
I think these are finalization-candidates.
	--Per Bothner
per@xxxxxxxxxxx   http://per.bothner.com/