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

Re: Minor last-minute issues

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.

Per Bothner:
> No. Kawa maps:
> [foo bar] to ($bracket-list$ foo bar)

I think we should *not* require a particular definition for unprefixed [...].  Many Schemes use that as a synonym for (...), and I want to minimize syntactic changes (such differences would be a source of bugs).  A particular *implementation* might support [...] as having a special meaning, but that should be independent.

> x[foo bar] to ($bracket-apply$ x foo bar)

Ah, the proposal is to use $bracket-apply$ instead of bracketaccess.

I think it's critical that the bracket access symbol be available in other Lisps too - at least Scheme and Common Lisp.  My intent is for this notation to work *beyond* Scheme.  But $bracket-access$ is legal in Scheme (at least R5RS) and Common Lisp ("$" is a constituent character), so I think it meets that criteria.

I'm not fond of $bracket-apply$ - it's a little ugly.  But perhaps its ugliness is a virtual; people are unlikely to use it as an identifier.  And being compatible with a previous convention - especially if people actually use it in real code - has its pluses.

Is there any code that depends on $bracket-apply$?  How much?  And are there any other thoughts on this, good or bad?

--- David A. Wheeler