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

Re: Lexical syntax for boxes

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.

Alex Shinn scripsit:

> I think it's good to have read syntax for most objects, but would
> prefer to handle this more generally, e.g.  SRFI-10/108.

SRFI 10 by itself is okay, but its suggested `define-reader-ctor`
mechanism suffers from phasing problems, as it is a run-time control
of a compile-time phenomenon.  SRFI 108 doesn't have that problem;
the only thing against it for the large language is that it's too new.
Still, three years from now (Ghu help us) that may not seem so important
an issue.

You let them out again, Old Man Willow!                 John Cowan
What you be a-thinking of?  You should not be waking!   cowan@xxxxxxxx
Eat earth!  Dig deep!  Drink water!  Go to sleep!
Bombadil is talking.                                    http://ccil.org/~cowan