Per Bothner scripsit: > >Note that because it works at the level of macro expansion, it can > >neuter uses of my proposal for extensible lexical syntax, but not a > >read-level mechanism like PLT's. > > I agree a read-level mechanism might be more flexible - but (in the > current State of the Scheme World) less portable. So perhaps it > would be desirable to support read-level conditionals in upcoming > standards, including "small Scheme".
Sorry, that was badly worded. I meant that SRFI-0 can suppress things analogous to backquote (which are just translated to forms that must be expanded by the evaluator), but not things analogous to R6RS #vu8 (which are expanded directly by the reader, and if it doesn't understand that syntax, you lose). My proposal for extensible syntax is more like backquote. Read-time conditionalization a la Common Lisp would presumably be able to suppress both. -- Principles. You can't say A is John Cowan <[email protected]> made of B or vice versa. All mass http://www.ccil.org/~cowan is interaction. --Richard Feynman _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
