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

Re: Suggestion: nix VALUES in favor of DOT

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 71 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 71 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

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.