I said:
> > We *could* switch to the "infix convention", though you can see I'm not
> > excited about it. Thoughts?
Alan Manuel Gloria:
> Bleah.
>
> Honestly, I first thought that curly-infix was pretty noisy (curly
> braces are more ornate than parens) but they're still pretty
> convenient. (foo(bar) . eq? . 'red) seems worse than { foo(bar) eq?
> 'red }. Despite { } being relatively noisy (due to their graphical
> ornateness) I find them quite often in my own code.
Okay, that sums up my feelings too. I think (a . + . b . + . c) is far worse
than {a + b + c}, so let's keep pressing with what we have. We'll need to
document why we did NOT do that in the SRFI submission (and in our Rationale).
--- 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
