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

Re: updated SRFI-108

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.

From: John Cowan <cowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: updated SRFI-108
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 20:24:34 -0500

> Probably, but the difference is one of whitespace only, and it makes
>     (foo &condition [bar 1 2])
> and
>     (foo &condition[bar 1 2])
> differ very radically.  If initial & was rare, I'd probably feel better
> about this, but it's common in SRFI 35 or R6RS code that deals with
> conditions.

I second that.  Technically I can live with that, for I could have
some sort of reader switch if I adopt the srfi in Gauche.  But I got
a feeling that I would wish we had #& instead of & in long run.