On Sun, 2012-05-06 at 12:54 -0700, Steve Haflich wrote: > I'm mildly opposed to trying to impose syntax extensions on the > language > if the only motivation is slight convenience. ANSI CL is 20 years > old, and > there are a lot mostly-conforming but old and unsupported > implementations > out there, and this syntax won't work out of the box.
I personally don't care about about modern code being able to run on old implementations, only(if slightly) about old code running on modern implementations, so continuously adding features is fine. > Besides, I find that feature expressions like #+never #+notyet # > +nomore or > #+bug456 provide useful self documentation about conditionals, > while we > programmers are often lazy about adding real documentation about > changes. It's difficult to put all necessary explanation inside a single symbol, even a Haiku requires two verses > > > But if you really like this syntax, there is nothing in the ANS that > would > preclude a source module from including the necessary read-time > set-dispatch-macro-char call early in its own source. Module-local syntax would be nice, but there is currently no editor(Emacs) and ASDF support for that so I won't use it > And if all you are concerned about is that someone might have pushed > :NIL onto the features list, the syntax #+(or) is logically and > portably > unscrewable. I know programmers who use it, although I find it > lexographically tedious. If God had intended me to spend so much time > and energy engaging the shift key, he would have given me three thumbs > or he would have given all computers Lispm keyboards. Many Europeans(like me) manage to write CL even if #\( is shifted, and #\# is on AltGr -- Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. http://common-lisp.net/project/iolib
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ pro mailing list pro@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
