From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sjoerd_van_Leent_Priv=E9?= Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: SRFI-105 (curly-infix-expressions) marker #!srfi-105 ... could guile live with that? Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:18:07 +0200 Message-ID: <50499FAF.7060803@gmail.com> References: <5046FAAA.1050204@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1347002312 2525 80.91.229.3 (7 Sep 2012 07:18:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:18:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: dwheeler@dwheeler.com Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 07 09:18:33 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1T9spf-0000og-CF for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:18:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38674 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9spc-0005wz-6w for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 03:18:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56921) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9spW-0005vs-8U for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 03:18:22 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9spQ-0001PG-D8 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 03:18:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ee0-f41.google.com ([74.125.83.41]:50076) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9spQ-0001P9-6Q for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 03:18:12 -0400 Original-Received: by eeke49 with SMTP id e49so1216210eek.0 for ; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:18:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MwUSg05IRZ9rHe3hnpLHUlNJlIbETewxmSMDrPzlPco=; b=JWXbEg5uDMB+5LAopPp09iKKd3Y3NTpjzhXag75ZkoJwEN7CZASJcuBy4c1AwxkMA9 Ep3Ln5j6H9wESsz9HKACYR4Z0mUUOWxouz0SOAIXnfoppp93M+W113aNu75dhkInSzgI TJ7sL28MesV6K5JE4Gx7zLJzgX5HyDU2F6hzvCsLikds0N2CRE7v+C05p6A3iyoHcgxS TfMQX/5ZZxBnseIk3s4J2QC84ORCjQHGcSXV9gWzXU21qGCgsXfYpjJh4lPLdzoaEy3Q jedfq6GFZj812je5IJmS6V5kw4gIvPrlCysoB6V/HUgkhcIhmEXu3+/HprJbnn94q4Bh xN3A== Original-Received: by 10.14.4.201 with SMTP id 49mr6472617eej.0.1347002291008; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.46] (195-240-166-168.ip.telfort.nl. [195.240.166.168]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k41sm12047194eep.13.2012.09.07.00.18.09 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:18:09 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0 In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 74.125.83.41 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:14865 Archived-At: On 05-09-12 14:12, David A. Wheeler wrote: > svanleent: >> From a pragmatic side, wouldn't it be better to just have a marker like >> #!curly-infix. The number 105 doesn't say much when reading the code, >> which is the whole reason for the existence of curly-infixing. > There are advantages either direction. I agree with you on the advantage of #!curly-infix, which was an alternative recommendation. However, John Cowan strongly argues that the advantage of #!srfi-105 is that it tells you "where to go for more information", as well as being more general. I believe it is information versus information. I believe strongly that a notion of #!curly-infix would be more readable than #!srfi-105. The latter doesn't explain at all why the file looks drastically different, whereas a notion of #!curly-infix (or #!sweet-scheme, #!scheme for the same reason) is more understandable. However, as you say, it doesn't say anything about the specification being involved, so for that matter, I believe the following could be applied: The guile parser could give us the literal SRFI's being implemented and with a bit of help from Emacs or whatever a developer prefers, it could become just as navigatable, to the extend of opening up the right info/pdf file or browser URL. Here it should be the tools to help us, and this requires an obvious effort. The implementation could be implemented as an option passed to guile as simple as guile --info-spec SCM-FILE1 ... SCM-FILE-N. The benefit is that this could enable to have more readable names in other cases as well (such as module inclusion, etc.) I understand well that this involves an additional step, however, to my mind, it makes coding much more elegant. >> Also, a file extension might change the folding mode. This could by >> something like .scmc (scheme-curly). > True. We use .sscm for "sweet-scheme", for example. > > --- David A. Wheeler