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

Re: here strings and symbols



Sebastian Egner <sebastian.egner@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> The background of the issue is the following: Sometimes I use
> Scheme for 'rapid prototyping' in the following way---a program
> that has no idea about Scheme, e.g. PostScript, externalizes
> data in Scheme syntax. This data is then either read into a
> Scheme program, or (and that is the tricky case) is directly
> executed by a suitably primed Scheme interpreter. Now in the
> latter case, it can be exremely convenient to reuse the identifiers
> available in the substrate program (e.g. PostScript).

Can you explain why it's convenient?  (I'm sure you have a rationale,
but I'm not sure which one of the several possibilities it is.)

If you want to read the resulting code yourself, it seems kind of
awkward to have:

(define
|<<ARGL
ps:foo
ARGL
(|<<ARGL
ps:baz
<<ARGL))

and so on.  I'd personally rather have

(define ps:foo (ps:baz))

and resort to quoting or here strings only in the case of identifiers
that defy direct translation to the "regular" identifier syntax.  Now
both quoting and here strings involve some kind of encoding---it's not
clear that any one is preferable, or even a translation to "regular"
identifier syntax.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla