On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 08:23:30AM -0400, Marc Feeley wrote: > Sorry... typed without thinking... I was focused on lining up the two > lines. So your code is correct.
Okay, that's good to hear :) > I like this syntax because it looks like the CL syntax, and it is very > simple concept to grasp once you know the string syntax (i.e. few of > my precious neurons are consumed by this feature). I'm not familiar with the CL syntax, but I also really appreciate this feature. It makes a lot of sense too, since it makes it possible to enter any kind of string as symbol literal. This means that if you can do (string->symbol <something>), you can also type in <something> and get the symbol. Without this syntax, you can create symbols that are impossible to enter literally. That's weird and can't really be explained. Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx -- "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music." -- Donald Knuth
pgp3zTogRdCxr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
