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

Re: The ". $" notation

From: Alan Manuel Gloria <almkglor@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: The ". $" notation
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:44:15 +0800

>> I'm a bit concerned that it might be confusing that:
>>    foo . ($ a b c)
>> is
>>    foo .
>>      $ a b c
> Uhm, no.
> "$" has a different meaning in an indentation context vs. a
> non-indentation context.

Ah, I see.  I've missed that part of the spec.

It's a bit unfortunate that if we need to treat the symbol '$'
specially, but since it already carries special syntactic
meaning in this srfi, it's by design.

I think it would be less common to generate t-exprs
programmatically than s-exprs.
Tools to convert s-exprs into nicely formatted t-exprs
would need to be aware of it, but I think t-exprs is
mostly for humans to write, so it'll probably be ok.

The Gauche's '$' macro is from the same motivation of '$' as
a SUBLIST---I prefer writing (foo (bar x (baz y z))) as 
($ foo $ bar z $ baz y z).  So I do see why you want to have SUBLIST
in this srfi.