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

Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"?

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.

David A. Wheeler scripsit:

> "Implementations <em>MAY</em> provide the procedures
> <var>curly-write</var>, <var>neoteric-write</var>, and/or <var>sweet-write</var>
> as writers that can write c-expressions, n-expressions, and t-expressions respectively.

I'd say forget sweet-write and go with curly-write and neoteric-write,
and go ahead and use MUST modals for them, without overspecifying
what they output.  R7RS systems MUST provide curly-write{simple,shared}
and neoteric-write-{simple,shared} as well.

As long as there is a good reference implementation, there is no reason
not to require these things.

Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.
        --Arthur C. Clarke, "The Nine Billion Names of God"
                John Cowan <cowan@xxxxxxxx>