l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Mark H Weaver skribis:
>
>> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>> My understanding was that the sweet-expressions folks already had
>>> something, no?
>>
>> The implementation they have (which they call a "demo") reimplements the
>> entire reader from
Hi,
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> My understanding was that the sweet-expressions folks already had
>> something, no?
>
> The implementation they have (which they call a "demo") reimplements the
> entire reader from scratch. There are several problems with t
On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 16:38 -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> > My understanding was that the sweet-expressions folks already had
> > something, no?
>
> The implementation they have (which they call a "demo") reimplements the
> entire reader from scratch. Ther
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> My understanding was that the sweet-expressions folks already had
> something, no?
The implementation they have (which they call a "demo") reimplements the
entire reader from scratch. There are several problems with this, the
worst of which is that it stro
Hi!
My understanding was that the sweet-expressions folks already had
something, no?
And there as also this preliminary patch:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2012-03/msg00129.html
What about applying first, then one above, then anything beyond?
Ludo’.
Hello all,
Here's an improved version of the SRFI-105 patch for Guile 2.0. It
incorporates the recent name change 'nfx' --> '$nfx$', has an improved
test suite, and now correctly handles the case where 'curly-infix' is
enabled but the 'square-brackets' read option is disabled.
This patch assumes
