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

Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope)

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 62 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 62 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Paul Schlie wrote:
> Personally I believe this is not a good idea, it's neither
> syntactically consistent with scheme, nor visually expected: more
> simply and consistently I would expect a #; comment to lexically
> remove the expression/token it's been lexically prepended to, nothing
> else. (including white-space). i.e.:
> ... (a #; b #;c) => (a b)

Why? That's a token comment, not an s-expression comment, and it seems
to serve no useful purpose (unless you intend to support token-pasting a
la (a#; b) => (ab), which is IMO a very bad idea).

I do agree that it'd be somewhat more intuitive if #; worked more like
QUOTE, with (#;#;foo bar) being equivalent to (#;(#;foo) bar) rather
than (#;foo #;bar). However, this idea of commenting tokens instead of
s-expressions seems like a very bad idea.
Bradd W. Szonye