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

*To*: dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Re: The ". $" notation*From*: Alan Manuel Gloria <almkglor@xxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:52:20 +0800*Cc*: srfi-110 <srfi-110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Delivered-to*: srfi-110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Dkim-signature*: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/ERwpKu49wTqVhL64tj6BF1zftDnBOtKBB3GQoj/+H0=; b=JguksBHKYJ+imOZ5US7pbZkmq8Y8ZKw3hKig9oO9MnUDLRJva5H3t23RAVWogmCX3M 4vrxos6Yt60a5YHGA8Gfpu3tVUbRzGQsI5eLW7dYIqYyW/EL8Yr262iI/568weXC9k5F nNcjAIbRzOvKLLBah/6KQylPv3+kh83s2v1sWafg+Po6ehN8QMCTU+MhbhpwVSI0FpR0 GaLYOcClHxly44KmVyINDAqqfKxKVxG1AmHKratPmPnQ6Md4/9zeXCJFWjEI8vhgBCGu 2+EMtbg+hZfnLFogdLGuU7WjiBe0yu/003rJvnAKQnrkN1/hE4NHN5dZuQCaRiZSeZ/I zVNQ==*In-reply-to*: <E1UHnDj-0003lm-71@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*References*: <CAF+kUQX5mK=VStZyu6zfGQj9SE+J4D=dHPF6+d-T-5a+tZ7XvA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130317.154441.695066990312419885.shiro@xxxxxxxx> <CAF+kUQX3ghwPo3Jk95Na0zY3kuxtbLQ-RyzZvthYo7Q-soTXyQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <E1UHcsS-0001aL-1g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAF+kUQWcQJOpPdvST04wy8QiiF+w++KhPFS33F4UPCU85_2r=g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <E1UHnDj-0003lm-71@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On 3/19/13, David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Alan Manuel Gloria: >> There's a subtle problem with ". $" though... >> >> First: >> >> a $ b >> ===> >> (a b) ; as described in the rationale for SUBLIST. >> >> Then: >> >> a . $ b >> ===> >> (a . b) >> >> ??? > > Bug, and I think fixed. Current development version of > "unsweeten" and the ANTLR implementation seem to work. > The Scheme implementation now does this: > > $ printf 'a . $ b\n\n' | ./unsweeten > (a b) > > > Supporting ". $" does have a slight annoyance; it creates a minor > ambiguity in the grammar (basically, like a "dangling else" clause in many > langauges). > I've been able to avoid those so far. It's not a crisis, because we can > easily make it go first, but it is an annoyance. Err mostly I was pointing out that this is actually an inconsistency - SUBLIST normally does not wrap a single datum after it in an extra layer of parens, while "." essentially removes an extra layer of parens. So maybe ". $" notation isn't as good as I thought. Sincerely, AmkG

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: The ". $" notation***From:*David A. Wheeler

**References**:**The ". $" notation (was: Re: how useful are collecting lists?)***From:*Alan Manuel Gloria

**Re: The ". $" notation***From:*Shiro Kawai

**Re: The ". $" notation***From:*Alan Manuel Gloria

**Re: The ". $" notation***From:*David A. Wheeler

**Re: The ". $" notation***From:*Alan Manuel Gloria

**Re: The ". $" notation***From:*David A. Wheeler

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Handling scomments after "."** - Next by Date:
**Re: The ". $" notation** - Previous by thread:
**Re: The ". $" notation** - Next by thread:
**Re: The ". $" notation** - Index(es):