This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 109 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 109 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Per Bothner scripsit: > I assume you mean: > &!END{content}END! Yes, that's what I meant. But on reflection I agree that this is bad. > >I am very much against this, for reasons given earlier: "}example" > >should not be distinct from "} example", since "}" is a delimiter. > > Not sure I understand why. (I don't remember seeing the earlier > reasons.) I don't see "}" listed as a <delimiter> in either R6RS > or R7RS draft 8. That's because it is undefined altogether. It doesn't make sense to define something as a delimiter and then say it doesn't actually have any function. But in the context of these SRFIs, { and } clearly act as delimiters, not as identifier characters. > Regardless, whether it is a <delimiter> is irrelevant - the question > is what can follow the "}". Your suggested syntax does have > "}TAG!" different from "} TAG!". Yes, and since terminal ! is part of regular Scheme identifiers (though not tags as defined here), it doesn't make sense to postpose it. > &!label{content}!label > &example{content}example > &example!label{content}!label > &example!label{content}example!label ; probably less useful The more I think about these, the less I think any of them are all that useful. XML are what it is (and so is LaTeX and other self-delimiting markup schemes), but I don't think their ideas need to be pervasive: the increasing popularity of JSON (which is just S-expressions with braces) over XML shows that. I am not one to say "Well, it's bad for the unaided user, but it's all right if you have the right tools", but I think paren-counting (brace-counting, etc.) tools are a price we already pay in Scheme, and I think we should avoid further complicating something that is already very bell-and-whistle-filled with all these alternative delimitation schemes. Let's just stick to "} matches { and ] matches [" and that's all there needs to be to it. -- John Cowan cowan@xxxxxxxx "You need a change: try Canada" "You need a change: try China" --fortune cookies opened by a couple that I know