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

Re: updated srfi-109 - cleaning up discussion items

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/