Egil Möller: > It also handles ".". So: > a . b > maps to (a . b) >This is even more general in the code. You can actually write >foo > bar > fie > . > naja > and it will mean (foo bar fie . naja)
I think _that_ is a great thing. One problem: It's not in the spec. I think that's a spec error - the spec SHOULD spell that out. Nobody will use I-expressions (or anything based on them) unless they can be really confident about what they're SUPPOSED to do; a precise, readable spec will help with that. >> . >> maps to () instead of |.| > This is a special case, and should maybe result in an error. I think it should map to |.| (i.e., the symbol "."). Granted, representing |.| is an inability of many EXISTING s-expression readers. Common Lisp can do it easily, as |.|, but there doesn't seem to be a standard way to do it in Scheme; |.| for some, (. .) for others, and \. for still others, but nothing standard. Since existing readers can't do it, perhaps it's not as bad if we can't, but it'd be good if we could. This comes down to one of my metrics for an expression language: We should be able to represent EVERY possible s-expression, with no exceptions. If we can, then it's easier to argue that they are acceptable substitute. --- David A. Wheeler ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
