[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: updated srfi-109 - cleaning up discussion items
Per Bothner scripsit:
> (1) "Discussion: It may be useful to allow an option to use a
> user-defined token, following a marker character - for example!"
I think this is a very useful option, though if you want to leave it out
I'm fine with that too. I prefer the second (symmetrical) syntax.
> Perhaps we can change the rule for &| - it deletes any
> prior whitespace in that line. It *also* deletes the prior
> newline if this is an initial newline.
That is the HTML/SGML rule, and I think it is exactly right.
> (4) "Discussion: The above example is a bit ugly; it might be reasonable
> to allow comments before the line-start marker:"
Frankly, I think this blows either way. I think the balance between
regularity and convenience should tip on the side of regularity here.
> I.e. "&" followed by a single character followed by ";"
> is equivalent to that literal character. Is this convenient
> enough to make up for adding yet more weird syntax?
> I.e. &\n for newline.
That has slightly more merit, but not that much.
> (7) "Discussion: It may be reasonable to move format support to a
> separate SRFI, where we could also cover string localization."
John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan cowan@xxxxxxxx
Lope de Vega: "It wonders me I can speak at all. Some caitiff rogue
did rudely yerk me on the knob, wherefrom my wits yet wander."
An Englishman: "Ay, belike a filchman to the nab'll leave you
crank for a spell." --Harry Turtledove, Ruled Britannia