Alan Manuel Gloria <[email protected]> said: >This seems to privelege QUOTE et al. too much. Or should they indeed be >privileged?
I agree with your intuition. Privileging quote isn't *necessarily* bad, but we should strive for the principle of least surprise, and this specific proposal seems like a "weird exception" that I think would make the format harder, not easier, to understand. In particular, you pointed out that: > ' > ..x > ..y > => yields (quote x y), which, while wrong, is still what I expect. It's not > clear from this alone what it should mean. I agree with you. Having this expression yield "(quote (x y))" would make it very inconsistent with the non-quote case, and I think we should strive for consistency. --- David A. Wheeler ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
