> On 2/19/08, Jim Ursetto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <signature type="string">doctype:xhtml-1.0-strict</signature> > > Thinking about this a little more, it strikes me that > "definition" or "def" is probably a better tag than "signature". > So: > > <def type="string">doctype:xhtml-1.0-strict</def> > > for unusual definitions we don't provide a built-in tag for. > > You could really replace every definition tag like this, e.g. > <def type="macro">(receive args expr body)</def> > > however, I think providing a few specific tags like we > discussed looks nicer. I'll leave the verdict on that > to the group.
Heh, this discussion is kinda similar to the Common Lisp versus Scheme discussion of whether different namespaces should be used for different types of things or there should be only one namespace. :-P I think we should stick to <proc>, <macro> and so on. They are easier to type than <def type="proc">, <def type="macro"> and so on. The fact that their associated rendering logic is very similar is not relevant. What if instead of <signature type="string"> and <def type="string"> we simply use <string>? Would that work? Alejo. http://azul.freaks-unidos.net/ _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
