On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Eli Barzilay <[email protected]> wrote:
> A few minutes ago, Alex Shinn wrote: > > > > Not that I'm accusing you of doing this (at least in the post I'm > > replying to) but I'm wary of such a situation occurring, so I'm not > > going to address the rest of your post via mail. Rather I'll > > summarize the issues as best I see it for both sides via the wiki. > > I completely agree with avoiding flamage -- but instead of ignoring > such posts, what I usually do to avoid them is try to get them back on > track. In this context, being on-topic would be the demonstration > that I asked for: this would be useful to see whether this is truly a > case where breaking hygiene is justified, or whether it can be > addressed elegantly without doing so. > I've started to list some examples of sexp-based pure data languages at: http://community.schemewiki.org/?sexp-language None of these examples are macros (although some provide convenience syntax wrappers). There is a certain amount of style and preference involved. Yes you could use combinators or macros to write regular expressions instead of SREs, but it would be too heavy and verbose for my taste. Config files and SXML, on the other hand, are data languages by definition - making the otherwise defeats the purpose. Using macros to sometimes recognize parts of them, however, is not outside the realm of possibility. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
