Alan Manuel Gloria:

> Awww..... (^.^)v


> Since you're unwilling to put the full Beni formulation in *right
> now*, then let's use classic formulation. I hope somebody else speaks
> up for the full Beni formulation and gives a fully interesting example
> *real soon now* (^_^)

Absolutely!  Thanks for being willing to do this.
This particular formulation is definitely interesting, I think
documenting it is important.

And please make it clear that this is an upward-compatible
extension that could be added later, without interfering with any
existing sweet-expressions.

> I volunteer to write up the Beni formulation for the SRFI-sweet
> document - unless Beni wants to write it up himself.

That'd be great.  Please feel free to document my "$-at-end"
attempt at a compromise.  If you don't want to do that, I'll add it.

> Note that:
> $
>   foo
> ==>
> ((foo))
> which is both non-obvious and not something I see as *useful*.  So
> raising an error is fine with me too.

Okay. John Cowan made the same point too.
Looks like we'll drop that, at least for this edition.

Once it's removed from the BNF, I think we need to make sure that the
Scheme specifically checks for it and forbids it.  That way, people won't
accidentally use such constructs for now, and that'll make it easier to
add later if indeed it's added later.

--- David A. Wheeler

Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
Readable-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to