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

Re: The ". $" notation



From: Alan Manuel Gloria <almkglor@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: The ". $" notation (was: Re: how useful are collecting lists?)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 09:26:04 +0800

> 1.  Allow "foo . EOL INDENT x ..." ==> "(foo . (x ...))"
> 2.  Allow "foo . $ x ..." ==> "(foo x ...)"

Is the latter "foo . $ x y ..." ==> "(foo x y ...)"?
Because "$" is a valid R5RS identifier, we need to
parse "foo . $ EOL" as a cons of 'foo and '$, correct?

I'm a bit concerned that it might be confusing that:

   foo . ($ a b c)

is

   foo .
     $ a b c

but

   foo . $ $ a b c

(The two '$' has different meanings!)

But people may get used to it, after all.

(I jumped in because Gauche has a '$' macro.  That allows
chaining function calls like Haskell's $ operator.)

--shiro