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

Re: [Readable-discuss] Semantics of single datum with all-empty-children in datum comments of sweet-expressions

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.

On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 7:37 PM, David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

foo5-body-only-comments
! Â#; hello

I think this isn't new - same situation could happen with datum comment of a neoteric _expression_:

foo5-body-only-comments
! Â#;hello

My current starting implementation produces this:
(foo5-body-only-comments)

... and *NOT* the symbol "foo5-body-only-comments".

IIUC, this also happens for datum comment of an n-expr, right?
Certainly both kinds of datum comments should behave similarly.
I think producing a list is good, per the general rule that datum comment indentation is significant.
[http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-110/srfi-110.html#block-comment-indent-significant]