[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



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]