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 racket-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to racket-dev@googlegroups.com. 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.
