Alan Manuel Gloria: > Awww..... (^.^)v
:-). > Since you're unwilling to put the full Beni formulation in *right > now*, then let's use classic formulation. I hope somebody else speaks > up for the full Beni formulation and gives a fully interesting example > *real soon now* (^_^) Absolutely! Thanks for being willing to do this. This particular formulation is definitely interesting, I think documenting it is important. And please make it clear that this is an upward-compatible extension that could be added later, without interfering with any existing sweet-expressions. > I volunteer to write up the Beni formulation for the SRFI-sweet > document - unless Beni wants to write it up himself. That'd be great. Please feel free to document my "$-at-end" attempt at a compromise. If you don't want to do that, I'll add it. > Note that: > > $ > foo > > ==> > > ((foo)) > > which is both non-obvious and not something I see as *useful*. So > raising an error is fine with me too. Okay. John Cowan made the same point too. Looks like we'll drop that, at least for this edition. Once it's removed from the BNF, I think we need to make sure that the Scheme specifically checks for it and forbids it. That way, people won't accidentally use such constructs for now, and that'll make it easier to add later if indeed it's added later. --- David A. Wheeler ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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_feb _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
