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.
On 3/14/13, David Vanderson <david.vanderson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 03/13/2013 07:22 PM, David A. Wheeler wrote: >> It does, but even if I modified head I would not expect it >> to do what you want. A ". x" by itself returns just "x" in other cases, >> so for consistency, adding a rule about "." in head would >> still create an additional (...). > Ah right - I see. >> >> But that's okay, because I think what you want is: >> define-library >> ! example grid >> ! export make rows cols ref each rename(put! set!) >> ! import scheme(base) >> ! . >> ! <* >> ! ;stuff >> *> > I don't think I'd have thought of this, but it's good to know it's > possible. >> >> Or, just: >> define-library . <* >> example grid >> export make rows cols ref each rename(put! set!) >> import scheme(base) >> ;stuff >> *> > This makes the most sense to me, I'll put it in the draft revision I'm > writing. I think: define-library (example grid) . <* export . ( ; constructors make ; accessors rows cols ref ; traversers each ; setters rename(put! set!) ) import (scheme base) ... *> ..makes more sense. The convention settling across Scheme's seems to be that libraries are named like so: (collection sub-lib ...), so using "scheme(base)" or "example grid" might be bucking conventions a little, since the "standard" names would be written "(scheme base)" and "(example grid)". Of course, t-expressions kicks parentheses conventions **hard**, so well, whatever anyway (^^) Sincerely, AmkG