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

Re: #\a octothorpe syntax vs SRFI 10

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 58 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 58 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

By the way, how does the proposed array syntax relate to quasiquotation
& syntax-rules?

Good point! Arrays would not have the same status as lists and vectors unless the quasiquotation and syntax-rules pattern/template syntax&semantics were extended to deal with them.

One also needs to consider the general implications of adding new types of literals to the syntax. It requires the extension, or at least careful examination, of any code that treats programs as data. Given that the programs-as-data philosophy is one of the hallmarks of Scheme, there is a lot of code in current use that would have to be extended/examined.

To make matters worse, unless the new literal syntax is part of the core standard (as vectors are, but arrays are not), there are significant complications in writing portable programs-as-data code that works both Schemes with and without the literal extensions in question.