Re: Is SRFI-110 ready for final release?

[Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin <cben@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[forgot to cc: the list. ÂI'll never learn.]

misc proofreading:

"Unfortunately, SRFI-49 had some awkward usage issues, and by itself it lacks support for infix notation (e.g., {a + b}) and prefix formats (e.g., f(x)). Sweet-expressions build on and refine SRFI-49 by addressing these issues. "
 Won't hurt to link here (again) to SRFI-105?

# Tutorial
## Clarifications
"2. Lines with only a ;-comment (preceded by 0 or more indent characters) are completely ignored - even their indentation (if any) is irrelevant."
 I'd explicitly add they are not considered empty and don't end an _expression_.

## Advanced features
"Sweet-expressions also add a few additional abbreviations, sometimes called sweet-_expression_ âadvanced featuresâ, that make sweet-expressions even more pleasant to use"
 At least GROUP is essential, not just "more pleasant". ÂThoughÂthe existing formulation may be better than any precise alternatives.

- SUBLIST - add comment drawing attention toÂc d e f $ g == c d e f gÂ!=Âc d e f (g)

-ÂmentionÂin tutorial how to escapeÂspecialÂmarkers (e.g. {\\})

# Spec
##ÂOther requirements
"Implementations that provide R7RS semantics ...ÂSHOULD appropriate variants of these"
 s/SHOULD/SHOULD include/.


On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:20 AM, David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I've just posted an updated SRFI-110, it's just small tweaks.

So.... is SRFI-110 ready for final release?

I haven't heard any more comments recently. ÂHowever, I'm concerned that the R7RS discussions are diverting everyone's attention (understandably). ÂIn particular, if there are changes necessary before people will be willing to implement it in Scheme implementations, I *really* want to know that.

Do we need a little more time, or are we all done?

--- David A. Wheeler

--Â

Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin

--

Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin