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

Re: SRFI-108/SRFI-109 special characters

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 108 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 108 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

On 11/27/2012 04:19 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Per Bothner scripsit:

The difference isn't always clear, but it does seem a useful
distinction especially for "document"-like applications.

On reflection, I'm inclined to agree that initial-expressions are useful,
but I still think they belong in an "advanced quasi-literal" SRFI, not
in this one.  Granted, without them the distinction in bracket types is
harder to motivate, but I can live with that.

I think a useful common mapping for
  #&cname{pre-exp ...}[abc&{infix-exp1}def&{infix-exp2}...xyz]
to translate into the equivalent of:
  (cname pre-exp ... #&[abc&{infix-exp1}def&{infix-exp2}...xyz])

I.e. a function (or macro) application whose arguments are the
initial expressions (often keyword-argument pairs),
followed the "literal" arguments converted to a string.

My plan is to provide a library macro to make this easy.

I already have 3 SRFIs to juggle, and it may be reasonable to
split out support for internationalized strings from SRFI-109
into a separate SRFI.  So I'm reluctant to create a separate
"advanced quasi-literal" SRFI.  Maybe if we end up with more
"advanced" features.
	--Per Bothner
per@xxxxxxxxxxx   http://per.bothner.com/