This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 13 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 13 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
oleg@xxxxxxxxx writes: > There are two major differences between 'substring' and the proposed > XS>< _notation_. For one thing, 'substring' function's interface is > written in stone: (substring str i j). All three arguments are > required, furthermore, (<= 0 i j (string-length str)) must be #t. XS>< > is not bound by this interface; it can accept fewer arguments and > negative indices. Why can't we extend the substring interface? > For another thing, substring is codified to be a procedure whose > result is a first-class value. No such promises have been made about > the XS>< notation. You still haven't explained why calling this notation `substring' would cause any problems avoided by calling it `XS><'. > System C: > (define-syntax string->number > (syntax-rules (XS><) > ((string->number (XS>< arg ...)) > (substring->number arg ...)) > ((string->number arg ...) (r5rs-string->number arg ...)))) > > (this is just the outline. A Scheme compiler may notice the XS>< > notation and perform the above conversion without actually requiring > string->number be a syntax. string->number may remain a normal > procedure). string->number *must* be a normal procedure. > The XS>< notation also effectively removes substring indices from all > string library procedures. Again this addresses Tom Lord's and other > people's concern. Using substring does the same just as well. You had a good idea; now have the courage of your convictions to take the next logical step! -- --Per Bothner per@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.bothner.com/~per/