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 Tue, 13 Aug 2013 17:14:10 -0400, John Cowan <cowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > David A. Wheeler scripsit: > > > A parsing directive is <i>valid</i> if and only if it begins > > at the beginning of a line, it is terminated by an end of line, > > and it is not contained inside an expression > > (e.g., inside parentheses or a collecting list). > > I'd simply say that it is an error unless a parsing directive begins, > etc., and drop the word "valid". Agreed, much simpler. I don't want to *forbid* an implementation from accepting such oddness, but I see no reason to require their support. > > An implementation may be a "native implementation". > > A native implementation <em>MUST</em> also accept, > > in its standard datum readers, > > a valid <code>#!sweet</code> directive, > > and from then on it <em>MUST</em> accept > > sweet-expressions from the same port > > (until some conflicting directive or instruction is given). > > "Also" is a little vague. I'd say "In addition to all other > requirements, a native implementation MUST etc." Agreed. > > A <i>well-formatted</i> s-expression is an expression interpreted > > identically by both traditional s-expressions and by sweet-expressions. > > I'm not a fan of this term. What about "polyglot" instead? (A document > which is both valid HTML and well-formed XML and has the same meaning > in both interpretations is called "polyglot HTML".) Hmm. I could live with "polyglot", but I worry that the term makes it sound complicated. Can anyone think of another name? (If not, I could certainly live with it...) --- David A. Wheeler