Alan Manuel Gloria: > Heya, looked at commit c94afdb0b89b1c1e2b8ec26111aef68308d59bd2,
Awesome, and thanks. I'm a big believer in peer review. > This seems different, shouldn't that be: > > + (if (or (char-whitespace? char) (eqv? #\newline char)) > + (list qt) > + (list qt (sugar-read-save port))))) I don't think so; char-whitespace?(#\newline) returns #t, so the extra "or" would be useless. R5RS says, "The whitespace characters are space, tab, line feed, form feed, and carriage return." (http://www.schemers.org/Documents/Standards/R5RS/HTML/ ). I checked, and I don't think the semantics changed. If I checkout the version before that change, the semantics are the same as the current master c88432322f745: git checkout 7885ce091: $ ./sweet-filter ' a b => '(a b) It's fair to ask what the semantics SHOULD be in such cases, of course; that's what we're trying to nail down. I think it's *important* that: ' a b . c d => '(a b (c d)) *My* expectation would be that if you wanted the extra grouping level, you'd use a group mark: ' group a b => '((a b)) And that if you say: ' . a b It's really the same thing as: quote a b => (quote (a b) => '(a b) So I'm happy with the semantics the tool has currently in this case, which I believe are exactly the same as SRFI-49. There's no loss of generality, just add the "group" marker after the quote marker. --- David A. Wheeler ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
