[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.

bear wrote:
And your claim that [SRFI-10] is good enough is based on what?
[...] there is no reason
whatsoever *EXCEPT* aesthetics to pick any external syntax over
any other.  [...]

SRFI-10 *can* express literal arrays. So can any proposed new syntax for literal arrays. So they're both good enough in terms of minimal functionality, and if minimal sufficiency were the only criterion, it would certainly be a purely aesthetic choice.

SRFI-10 has a major advantage, however: it actually exists already, and is already implemented in many schemes. Why multiply entities unnecessarily?

It has another advantage: it is more general than a special array-only syntax. It can cope not only with arrays, but with other extensions to Scheme's reader. This reduces the burden on the implementor.