Panicz Maciej Godek <godek.maciek@gmail.com> writes:

> 2017-05-13 3:52 GMT+02:00 Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>:
>
>> Hi Arne,
>>
>> Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab@web.de> writes:
>> > A few weeks ago I asked in IRC whether wisp[1] could be included with
>> > Guile in modules/language/wisp to allow every guile users to run wisp
>> > code from any Guile installation via
>> >
>> >
>> >     $ guile --language=wisp [<file>]
>> >
>> >
>> > Essentially this is about making wisp as language part of the
>> > "batteries" of Guile.
>>
>> About 4.5 years ago, I went out on a limb and added SRFI-105 (curly
>> infix expressions) to core Guile.  Even now, I'm of the opinion that
>> judicious use of curly infix could be beneficial for readability, but as
>> far as I can tell, there's been essentially no uptake.  If I'm wrong
>> about that, please let me know.

I’m using curly infix in cond-expressions, both with wisp and with
regular Scheme:

(cond
  ({a < 5}
   (something)
   (more))
  ({a > 7}
   (something-else)))

cond
  : {a < 5}
    something
    more
  : {a > 7}
    something-else


>> Although (a subset of) SRFI-105 seems like a clear win to me, I cannot
>> say the same of either Wisp or SRFI-110 (Sweet expressions).
>>
> "The idea of introducing Algol-like syntax into Lisp keeps popping up and
> has seldom failed to create enormous controversy between those who find the
> universal use of S-expressions a technical advantage
…

This is a nice read, but does not apply to Wisp itself, since Wisp just
infers the parentheses from indentation but otherwise does not change
anything.

It does apply to some degree to SRFI-105, but not fully.
A rationale is provided here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160505180131/http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-105/srfi-105.html#rationale_changereader

(being able to use infix for pattern matching)

That said: I like is as infix very much and would love to see it
included — e.g. in (ice-9 is).

On the other hand, a SRFI for is would make it easier to build
cross-system scheme with it.

> and (is x < y <= z) is more concise than (and (< x y) (<= y z)).

Best wishes,
Arne
--
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken