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

Re: updated srfi-109 - cleaning up discussion items

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 109 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 109 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

On 02/26/2013 07:00 AM, John Cowan wrote:
Per Bothner scripsit:

However, '&' remains.  We can support this one
by the traditional mechanism of doubling:

&{Smith && Wesson}  ==> "Smith & Wesson"

as well as:

&{Smith & Wesson}

We can do so, but I don't see much point in it.  Yet another deviation from
regularity needs a justification better than "It's two characters shorter",
and this one I think does not meet that bar.

Actually it's "three characters shorter" plus I think it's a little
easier to read and to write.

Especially beneficial when writing examples with named characters.
For example instead of:
  to write '<code>&amp;</code>' in HTML do '<code>&amp;amp;</code>'
one can write:
  to write '<code>&&</code>' in HTML do '<code>&&amp;</code>'
	--Per Bothner
per@xxxxxxxxxxx   http://per.bothner.com/