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.
[Sent to both srfi-108 and srfi-109 lists, with follow-ups to the srfi-108 list.] We have been discussion whether to add optional end delimters to SRFI-109 strings, for example: &!END-TEXT{ one two three uno dos tres }END-TEXT! On reflection, such end delimiters may be equally valuable for named literals, including document processing. In that case it makes sense to allow the tagname as an end delimiter. This is done in XML: <tag>...</tag>. It is also common on document processing (markup) languages, including Scribe, LaTeX and texinfo: \begin{example} \end{example} @begin example @end example This makes it easier to "match up delimiters" and it can help catch errors, especially for long bodies. I suggest allowing an optional '&tagname' before the ending '}'. ¶{ Sentence1. Sentence 2. ¶} It is an error if the ending tagname doesn't match the start tagname. This makes for easy parsing, without ambiguities. Alternatively, having the end tag follow the '}' is possible, but the parsing is more complex, and it seems difficult to avoid ambiguities. For example: ¶{ Sentence1. Sentence 2. }para or: ... }para! or: ... }!para Having the end delimiter start with '}' makes it easier to find it (especially on the start of the line), but the syntax and parsing becomes less obvious. The SRFI-109 (string) syntax should be designed in conjuction with this. For example, if we go with the: ¶{ ... ¶} syntax, then a "matching" SRFI-109 syntax might be: &!END{ ... !END} -- --Per Bothner per.bothner@xxxxxxxxxx per@xxxxxxxxxxx http://per.bothner.com/