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

Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic

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: "David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
From: John Cowan <cowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 23:20:11 -0400
Cc: stone <stone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, srfi-110 <srfi-110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: srfi-110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <E1Ug0fJ-0006vr-9Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20895.56587.135053.355629@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <E1Ug0fJ-0006vr-9Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: John Cowan <cowan@xxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

David A. Wheeler scripsit:

> We can argue about Icon and Occam and Haskell, but that's not really
> the point.

Is this some other Icon than
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon_(programming_language)>?  Because that
language is definitely not indentation sensitive: it uses semicolons
like Pascal (separators, not terminators) and braces like C.

-- 
XQuery Blueberry DOM                            John Cowan
Entity parser dot-com                           cowan@xxxxxxxx
    Abstract schemata                           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    XPointer errata
Infoset Unicode BOM                                 --Richard Tobin

Follow-Ups:
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
  - From: David A. Wheeler

References:
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
  - From: John David Stone
- Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
  - From: David A. Wheeler

Prev by Date: Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
Next by Date: Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
Previous by thread: Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
Next by thread: Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread