It’s no secret that I love syntax/parse, but I’m a little less vocal of my love of syntax/parse/experimental/template, mostly because of that scary “experimental” in the name. Really, though, template is great, and it’s to syntax what syntax-parse is to syntax-case. Is there anything blocking making it a stable API? I’d imagine that, at this point, it’s probably used by more than a few people.
If one of the main qualms is the use of the cryptic ?? and ?@ identifiers, may I suggest alternate names? I think it would make sense to re-use syntax-parse’s ~or and ~seq names, since those are the closest duals in terms of functionality. One argument against might be that it would make it harder to produce syntax that contains syntax-parse patterns, so it would be possible to use an alternate sigil, instead, but I think it probably wouldn’t be too hard for users to wrap patterns with escapes if necessary. Otherwise, are there any other reasons for keeping template marked experimental? It’s a wonderful tool, but I feel a bit guilty depending on it if it’s not technically a stable API. Alexis -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/12EA515A-CB1C-4F39-B7DD-89019A454709%40gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
