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.
On 09/18/2012 05:03 PM, David A. Wheeler wrote:
Per Bothner:No. Kawa maps: [foo bar] to ($bracket-list$ foo bar)I think we should *not* require a particular definition for unprefixed [...].
It's a bit weird to have a (reader) definition for F0[F1 F2] but not [F1 F2].
Many Schemes use that as a synonym for (...), and I want to minimize syntactic changes
The convention seems to be to use [...] for a "clause" - i.e. where [...] is used definitions and other forms for grouping of things that aren't expressions. One could implement these forms so they recognized ($bracket-list ...) - though I'm not sure that is worth the effort. (I tried to do so, but gave up without getting very far.)
(such differences would be a source of bugs).
If we're talking about forms purely within curly-braces, or in a library that is marked with #!curly-index, then I'm not sure there needs to be a conflict.
x[foo bar] to ($bracket-apply$ x foo bar)
I'm not fond of $bracket-apply$ - it's a little ugly But perhaps its ugliness is a virtual [sic]; people are unlikely to use it as an identifier.
Exactly.
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?
Probably little or no user code - just Kawa internals. -- --Per Bothner per@xxxxxxxxxxx http://per.bothner.com/