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

Re: Lexical syntax for boxes



Alex Shinn scripsit:

> > I don't see the use case for the lexical syntax.  In fact, I'd
> > classify it as a Bad Idea.
>
> I agree.  Does this have any precedent in existing implementations?

As noted in the text itself, it's present in Racket, Gambit, SISC, Chez,
and Chicken, though in Racket it means an immutable box.

> Apart from that the SRFI looks good, and the R7RS portable definition
> (portable only in the absence of lexical syntax) is trivial.

Good.  My new draft at <http://ccil.org/~cowan/temp/srfi-111.html> (now
in the SRFI publication queue) excludes the lexical syntax.

-- 
John Cowan   http://ccil.org/~cowan   cowan@xxxxxxxx
'My young friend, if you do not now, immediately and instantly, pull
as hard as ever you can, it is my opinion that your acquaintance in the
large-pattern leather ulster' (and by this he meant the Crocodile) 'will
jerk you into yonder limpid stream before you can say Jack Robinson.'
        --the Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake