This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 111 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 111 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
David Banks scripsit:
> The spec seems good. I would personally make the lexical syntax
> optional, as it is (to my eyes) ugly and doesn't provide anything
> strictly necessary, which the rest of the spec does.
One of the things I've found out from the SRFI-110 effort is that all
novel lexical syntax seems ugly when you aren't used to it. I think
it's a Good Thing to have box : it makes it easy and natural to use them,
and there are no phasing issues since there are no names involved.
> It might be worth noting in the spec that the reference
> implementations do not implement the lexical syntax.
I will do so.
--
LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy? John Cowan
FOOL: All thy other titles http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
thou hast given away: cowan@xxxxxxxx
That thou wast born with.