[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.

Shiro Kawai scripsit:

> C-exprs and n-exprs are technically orthogonal, and you split
> them partly because for the ease of adoption.  But I feel that
> combining them increases their appeal a lot for wider adoption,
> while supporting only one doesn't seem likely.
> Supporting n-exprs only in c-exprs may seem technically inelegant,
> but how about seeing it as a starting point?  To me it seems easier
> to flip switch once I enter '{}' world, so I don't mind if the
> syntax is different in '{}' from outside '()' world.

+1 to all points.

I believe that n-expressions outside curlies will never be a good idea.
(I also don't like the name; it makes me think of Theodore Sturgeon's
classic short story _Microcosmic God_.)  I'd say go ahead and include
n-exprs in SRFI 105, though.

"Repeat this until 'update-mounts -v' shows no updates.         John Cowan
You may well have to log in to particular machines, hunt down   cowan@xxxxxxxx
people who still have processes running, and kill them."