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

Re: The ". $" notation

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.

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.