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

Re: moving on

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 46 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 46 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Hash: SHA1

On Dec 7, 2003, at 4:53 PM, bear wrote:
> No, I think this is too complicated. We're talking more about
> this as syntax than as list structure anyway; I think that
> making people think in terms of list structure would just
> confuse the issue.
> My recommendation is keep it simple:
> ...
> (... ...)
> (... ... ...)
> (... ... ... ...)
> etc, to match existing practice.
> 			Bear

I'm not sure what you mean about thinking in terms of list structure - 
I don't see how this is forcing people to think in terms of list 
structure any more than, say, dotted lambda lists. The list structure 
here is necessary to make the idea consistent; "..." only makes sense 
if you explicitly aren't thinking about the list structure (otherwise 
you'd think that "(...)" would be the first in the pattern). With 
dotted lists, "..." really is the first in the pattern - just like 
lambda lists, where we have (lambda rest ...), (lambda (firstarg . 
rest) ...), et al.

Secondly, just because something is existing practice doesn't mean it's 
been well thought out. It's not as if this isn't an easy change to make 
in source code: M-% ... ...)<ENTER>... . ...)<ENTER>

- --
Brian Mastenbrook

Version: PGP 8.0.3