>> 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.


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:
Readable-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to