On 8/6/12, David A. Wheeler <dwhee...@dwheeler.com> wrote: > I claimed: >> > I still think we ought to map "EMPTY $ RHS" to "(RHS)". It's useful >> > for >> > single-variable "let" and Scheme "do" loops. Since we don't even >> > *allow* it >> > right now, it's even backward-compatible :-). > > Alan Manuel Gloria: >> Precisely why I didn't allow it: I wasn't certain what semantics would >> be best for such a case, and I didn't have much time to think about >> it. So the error is more like "reserved for future use" than an >> actual error. > > Makes sense. It's only after playing with "$" that I've become convinced of > what its semantics *should* be... and that it's odd that it's missing. > >> If my thinking is right then this case simply requires calling into >> readblock-clean, making a list out of its return value, then consing a >> split-tag to its front (so that the outer clean doesn't unwrap the list). > > I haven't looked at it deeply, but that sounds right. I wonder if that code > can be simplified further.
Yeah, split readblock into a real "head" production followed by a "body" production rather than what it currently does, which is basically to implement head then concatenate it with body. That way we can probably remove split-tag. Maybe, anyway. LOL. I think adding SUBLIST-at-the-start semantics justifies incrementing the minor spec version. Sincerely, AmkG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
