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

Re: Is SRFI-110 ready for final release?

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.

Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin:

> misc proofreading:

Awesome!  Thanks for doing that.

> "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.

Done (I just said that they "do not end an expression" since that's the main thing).

> ## 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".  Though the
> existing formulation may be better than any precise alternatives.

Well... technically you can also use parens with traditional formatting.
And I can't offhand think of a better way to say it.

> - SUBLIST - add comment drawing attention to c d e f $ g == c d e f g != c d e f (g)


> - mention in tutorial how to escape special markers (e.g. {\\})


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


--- David A. Wheeler