There have been interesting comments on the SRFI 105 list on curly-infix
notation. I'd like comment/discussion here, if there's any.
I have tried to summarize the comments here:
http://sourceforge.net/p/readable/wiki/SRFI-Curly-issues/
Two smaller issues first:
1. They'd like to use "equal?" in
On 8/31/12, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> There have been interesting comments on the SRFI 105 list on curly-infix
> notation. I'd like comment/discussion here, if there's any.
>
> I have tried to summarize the comments here:
> http://sourceforge.net/p/readable/wiki/SRFI-Curly-issues/
>
> Two smaller
Alan Manuel Gloria:
> Okay, fine, I don't like it (inconsistency here concerns me), but I
> won't oppose it. Will not support, will not oppose.
>
> Here's another question. I assume that { foo(bar(nitz)) } is (foo
> (bar nitz)), i.e. n-expressionism is recursive within curlies.
Yes.
> How wil
So I'm planning this little 4x game, and of course every new 4x game
worth its salt has user-editable rulesets, so I'm thinking of making
t-expressions the basic syntax for rulesets.
So I envisioned something like this (in s-expressions):
(unit-type-rules
(
(unit-class )
(unit-type-nam
