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 Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:59:41 +0800, Alan Manuel Gloria <almkglor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Looks good to me. Good! > foo > \\ > \\ > ===> > (foo) ... > whereas: > > foo > ===> > foo > ? Yes, that's intentional. If a line has a child line, then it's wrapped into a list... even if the child line produces empty. My rationale is that if you comment out later lines that are parameters of a procedure, you probably *stiill* want to treat it as a procedure. E.G., given: foo ! complicated-expression 4 7 ! ! otherstuff 8 If you comment foo's parameters: foo ! #; complicated-expression 4 7 ! ! otherstuff 8 ... then you probably still want "foo" to be called, so "(foo)" is probably the correct way to interpret this. So it makes sense to simply say that "monify" is only called when there are no child lines. It's an easier rule to explain, too. And once you accept that notion, it's important to be consistent about it all the way through. If someone REALLY wants foo to become a single value, he can use a block comment: foo #| ! #; complicated-expression 4 7 ! ! otherstuff 8 |# Of course, just because it's intentional doesn't make it the best approach. Objections? Agreements? --- David A. Wheeler