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

Re: Suggestion: nix VALUES in favor of DOT

Alpha Petrofsky <alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote at 2005-05-16T15:01:17-0700:
> To avoid that mentally taxing triple-open-paren, you could use a
> keyword named DOT rather than VALUES, with a syntax like so:
> Whether or not DOT would be the best choice of identifier for this, I
> don't know.  Here are the identifiers I considered:

I like this idea.

Another keyword option is a "..." suffix, inspired by "syntax-rules":

     (let ((a b c ... (values 1 2 3 4))) c)  ;=> (3 4)

     (let ((x ...     (values 1 2 3 4))) x)  ;=> (1 2 3 4)

Of course, "syntax-rules" really wants to reserve that keyword for its
own pattern language.