> >> For the same reason, I am opposed to the "<* ... *>" syntax. We already >> have a way of doing this, even if it's imperfect, and we should stick >> with that rather than adding yet another complication. That syntax >> should either be an error, or these forms should be ordinary identifiers. > > I'm more bullish on their prospects, since there *are* use cases. > It's certainly possible to reserve "<*" and "*>" instead, so that they can > be > optionally added later. If we don't actually add them, I think we should > at least reserve them.
In particular, Scheme implementations whose library syntax requires that the entire library be inside a single datum: (library foo (define whatever 'whatever) (define whatnot 'whatnot)) Imagine 'whatever above to be a complex expression, and then try to expand it. Sincerely, AmkG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122412 _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
