On 1/30/13, David A. Wheeler <dwhee...@dwheeler.com> wrote: > Alan Manuel Gloria: >> I'm concerned about # syntax. >> >> In particular, I'm worried about # syntax being used for non-datums >> (basically, comments). >> >> I wonder if adding this to the spec would be a good idea: >> >> <p> >> If an implementation supports some way of >> extending the reader syntax at all, >> such as by providing a hook into the <code>#</code> reader, >> then that hook <em>MUST</em> be able to signal >> a non-datum (basically, a comment). > > The issue is certainly real. But without a standard way to signal it, > it's not clear what this text would do for anyone. I think it should at > best be a "SHOULD", and perhaps not even that if there's no > standard interface. > > Are you trying to slyly slip comment-tag into the spec :-) ?
Ugh, no. I regret that bit of hackery (T.T). That's the reason why my example uses the () = comment, (datum)=datum convention instead. Basically, I was kinda suggesting that convention should be used. Should we strengthen that convention ()=comment, (datum) = datum (AND MOST DEFINITELY NOT comment-tag, WHO WROTE THAT CODE? ^^;;;) instead and demote the MUST to SHOULD? Sincrely, AmkG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
