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

Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 105 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 105 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

(Quick aside to John Cowan: Thanks for joining the SRFI 105 discussion, and also thanks for your hard work on R7RS!)

Anyway, John Cowan said:
> An implementation might, for example, want to provide nfx as a macro
> which looks for user-written precedence definitions and does the Right
> Thing with them.  This ought not to be forbidden.  Just like any
> other identifier provided by an implementation, the user would be
> free to redefine it, after all.

I think that's the key thing - "nfx" is intended to be an application-level hook so that users can define their own precedence system.

I should note that while I think it's important to *enable* precedence using "nfx", it's quite easy to write useful programs without requiring precedence at all.

--- David A. Wheeler