This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 62 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 62 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
> From: Paul Schlie <schlie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> From: Robby Findler <robby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> It's just that #; working at the read-level is what makes it useful to me.
>> If it works at the lexical level it would be strange. For example,
>> parenthesis are typically individual lexemes, so this:
>>
>> (a #;(a) b)
>>
>> would go to:
>>
>> (a a) b)
>>
>> rather than:
>>
>> (a b)
>
> No more than:
>
> (a '(a) b) => (a (quote a)) b)
>
> Which is doesn't as ' applies the lexically following <s-exp>,
> thereby by applying the same conventions:
>
> (a #;(a) b) => (a {remove (a)} b) => (a b)
>
> Just as:
>
> (a '(a) b) => (a {quote (a)} b) => (a (quote (a)) b)
>
> Where {} denote operations/transforms applied by the "reader"
I suspect that part of my problem is that I also believe that quote ('),
unquote(,), etc. reader abbreviations should disallow white-space between
the abbreviation symbol and the <s-exp> to which it's applied by the reader.
(a 'b c) => (a (quote b) c)
(a ' b c) => (a b c) ; warning, unbound quote.
As given that lists are constructed from [car cdr] pairs, the expression:
(a ' b c) :: [a [' [b [c ]]]] => [a [[quote [b [c ]] ] :: (a (quote b c))
Which is wrong; as opposed to being literally lexically assoc with <s-exp>:
(a 'b c) :: [a ['b [c ]]] => [a [[quote [b ]] [c ]]] :: (a (quote b) c)
Which I know is irrelevant, but just attempting to explain the basis of my
thoughts, as odd or misguided as they may be.