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.
On 05/23/2013 06:26 PM, Alex Shinn wrote:
Well, Scribble is fairly complex too. But on double checking SRFI-108 is not as large as I thought - I think it was the whole set 107, 108, 109 that was intimidating. I'll take a closer look.
My habit of excessively mentioning every possible alternative and issue doesn't help any ...
I think using @ for rough Scribble compatibility, or \ for LaTeX familiarity and backwards compatibility with Scheme would be a good idea though.
This is discussed here: http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-108/srfi-108.html#delimiter-options as well as the SRFI-10[79] mailing lists. There was some discussion, and the consensus was &. We can of course re-open the issue, especially if the "owners" of Scribble get involved. There are a number of issues to keep in mind, including: - I'd like to use a "compatible" syntax for SRFI-109 quasi-strings. If we use & then it is ok to use &{text} for a string, but if we use @ then @{text} is incompatible with Scribble, so we presumably have to consider some alternative - like @'{text} of #'{text}. - Using @ isn't really an option for SRFI-107 XML-literals, so we'd get less compatibility there. - Scribble maps @foo{text} to (foo "text") but SRFI-108 maps it to ($construct$:foo "text"). I think the latter is more flexible and thus preferable. However, this would be an incompatibility that reduces the advantage of following Scribble. - The prefix character @ is natural for a splicing operator, since it is already used for that in quasi-quotation. Thus (foo @(list a b c)) would be equivalent to (foo a b c), like an implicit call to apply. It seems a shame to foreclose that. -- --Per Bothner per@xxxxxxxxxxx http://per.bothner.com/