Mail Index
This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 110 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 110 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
- copy pasting sweet expressions
- Re: copy pasting sweet expressions
- Re: copy pasting sweet expressions
- Correct URL for reference implementation
- RE: copy pasting sweet expressions
- "Readable" version 0.7.0 released
- RE: #!sweet (was copy pasting sweet expressions)
- Examples of sweet-expressions
- how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- From: Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Re: how useful are collecting lists?
- Datum labels
- Code sample pairs
- Code sample pair: SRFI-9
- Code sample pair: SRFI-6
- The ". $" notation (was: Re: how useful are collecting lists?)
- Re: The ". $" notation
- Re: The ". $" notation
- Re: The ". $" notation (was: Re: how useful are collecting lists?)
- Code sample pair: SRFI-13
- Re: The ". $" notation
- Re: The ". $" notation
- Re: The ". $" notation
- Re: The ". $" notation
- Handling scomments after "."
- Re: Handling scomments after "."
- Re: The ". $" notation
- Re: The ". $" notation
- Various updates in the sample implementation
- Most s-expressions are well-formed
- First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Just one initial_indent
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Updated SRFI
- Draft SRFI update - initial indent with "!"
- Re: Draft SRFI update - initial indent with "!"
- Re: Draft SRFI update - initial indent with "!"
- Re: Updated SRFI
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- Re: First impressions of the specification
- OT: Formatting Lisp code from the command line (was: First impressions of the specification)
- Re: OT: Formatting Lisp code from the command line
- Re: OT: Formatting Lisp code from the command line
- Any other changes?
- Re: OT: Formatting Lisp code from the command line (was: First impressions of the specification)
- From: Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin
- Re: OT: Formatting Lisp code from the command line (was: First impressions of the specification)
- SRFI-110 updated, readable 0.7.1 released
- Need to change parse-hash in reference implementation
- Re: Need to change parse-hash in reference implementation
- Re: Need to change parse-hash in reference implementation
- Another code sample - symbolic derivatives
- Re: Another code sample - symbolic derivatives
- Re: Another code sample - symbolic derivatives
- Re: Another code sample - symbolic derivatives
- Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"?
- Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"?
- Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"?
- Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"?
- Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"?
- Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"?
- Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"?
- Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"?
- Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"?
- Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"?
- First cut at "curly-write" and "neoteric-write" with -shared and -cyclic versions
- Draft updated SRFI-110 and reference implementation
- Updated: SRFI-110 specification and reference implementation
- Re: Updated: SRFI-110 specification and reference implementation
- Re: Updated: SRFI-110 specification and reference implementation
- Reference implementation style: "_" => "-"
- Any other changes/objections for SRFI-110 (sweet-expressions)?
- FYI: Have a Common Lisp implementation, too
- Is SRFI-110 ready for final release?
- Why forbid ! in whitespace-only line?
- From: Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin
- Re: First cut at "curly-write" and "neoteric-write" with -shared and -cyclic versions
- From: Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin
- Proposal: make $ serve as GROUP, leave \\ to always be SPLIT
- From: Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin
- scope of #!sweet and friends inside parens
- From: Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin
- Re: Is SRFI-110 ready for final release?
- From: Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin
- Re: scope of #!sweet and friends inside parens
- Re: scope of #!sweet and friends inside parens
- From: Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin
- Re: Why forbid ! in whitespace-only line?
- Re: First cut at "curly-write" and "neoteric-write" with -shared and -cyclic versions
- Re: scope of #!sweet and friends inside parens
- Re: Is SRFI-110 ready for final release?
- Re: scope of #!sweet and friends inside parens
- From: Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin
- Re: Why forbid ! in whitespace-only line?
- spaces and tabs confused?
- Re: spaces and tabs confused?
- Re: spaces and tabs confused?
- Re: Proposal: make $ serve as GROUP, leave \ to always be SPLIT
- Re: [Readable-discuss] Proposal: make $ serve as GROUP, leave \ to always be SPLIT
- From: Arne Babenhauserheide
- Re: Why forbid ! in whitespace-only line?
- Re: Proposal: make $ serve as GROUP, leave to always be SPLIT
- Let's delay release of SRFI-110
- Re: First cut at "curly-write" and "neoteric-write" with -shared and -cyclic versions
- Comment on SRFI-110 and Comparison to Genyris xyzzy
- Re: Comment on SRFI-110 and Comparison to Genyris xyzzy
- sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Updated SRFI-110 posted!
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- From: Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- RE: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
- More comments, and the ANTLR code is too complex
- Re: More comments, and the ANTLR code is too complex
- Re: More comments, and the ANTLR code is too complex
- Re: More comments, and the ANTLR code is too complex
- Re: More comments, and the ANTLR code is too complex
- Re: More comments, and the ANTLR code is too complex
- Re: More comments, and the ANTLR code is too complex
- Re: More comments, and the ANTLR code is too complex
- Re: More comments, and the ANTLR code is too complex
- Re: More comments, and the ANTLR code is too complex
- Re: More comments, and the ANTLR code is too complex
- Re: More comments, and the ANTLR code is too complex
- Re: More comments, and the ANTLR code is too complex
- Re: More comments, and the ANTLR code is too complex
- Re: More comments, and the ANTLR code is too complex
- Re: More comments, and the ANTLR code is too complex
- datum comments of sweet-expressions
- Re: datum comments of sweet-expressions
- Re: datum comments of sweet-expressions
- Re: datum comments of sweet-expressions
- Re: datum comments of sweet-expressions
- Semantics of single datum with all-empty-children in datum comments of sweet-expressions
- Re: [Readable-discuss] Semantics of single datum with all-empty-children in datum comments of sweet-expressions
- From: Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin
- Re: datum comments of sweet-expressions
- datum comments of sweet-expressions - now implemented in Scheme
- Re: More comments, and the ANTLR code is too complex
- Proposed grammar change: forbid lines with >1 n-expr that end with "."
- Re: Proposed grammar change: forbid lines with >1 n-expr that end with "."
- Updated SRFI-110 posted! Sweet-expression datum comments+simpler grammar
- Potential change in sample implementation - comments?
- Re: Potential change in sample implementation - comments?
- Very minor grammar tweak
- Re: Very minor grammar tweak
- Re: Very minor grammar tweak
- Updated SRFI-110 posted.
- Re: Updated SRFI-110 posted.
- Re: Updated SRFI-110 posted.
- Better error resync - read until un-indented line
- Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum"
- Re: Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum"
- Re: Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum"
- SRFI-110 updated (version 2013/08/07)!! Are we done??
- Re: Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum"
- Re: Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum"
- Re: Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum"
- Re: Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum"
- Thoughts on sweet-expression editor modes (including ParEdit operations)
- Re: Thoughts on sweet-expression editor modes (including ParEdit operations)
- Re: Thoughts on sweet-expression editor modes (including ParEdit operations)
- Re: Thoughts on sweet-expression editor modes (including ParEdit operations)
- Re: Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum"
- Re: Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum"
- Re: Thoughts on sweet-expression editor modes (including ParEdit operations)
- From: Arne Babenhauserheide
- Re: SRFI-110 updated (version 2013/08/07)!! Are we done??
- Re: Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum"
- Re: SRFI-110 updated (version 2013/08/07)!! Are we done??
- Re: SRFI-110 updated (version 2013/08/07)!! Are we done??
- Re: Change: MUST support block comment "#|...|#" and datum comment "#; datum"
- LAST CALL for SRFI-110. Deadline 2013-09-07
- Reminder: LAST CALL for SRFI-110. Deadline 2013-09-07
- Thank you VERY MUCH for participating in SRFI-110 (sweet-expressions)
Mail converted by MHonArc