Re: [Chicken-users] need idea for read-syntax

[Peter Keller]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 07:11:47AM +0100, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
> Am Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:16:51 +1100 hat Peter Wang 
> <address@hidden> geschrieben:
> 
> >On 2003-11-15, felix <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>
> >>The difference between #[ ... ]# and #> ... <# is that the latter 
> >>expands
> >
> >If you're going to go with #[ ... ]#, consider changing #> ... <# to
> >#< ... >#, otherwise I think it can be quite confusing.
> >
> 
> Alas, #< ... > is already in use for "unprintable" values
> (similar to Common LISP and many other Lisp/Scheme dialects).
> 
> BTW, what about
> 
> #] ... [#

Hello,

I definitely wouldn't do that #] ... [#

Imagine if you wrote scheme like this:

)print )+ )- 2 3(((

That would be the same mental effect--"where's that closing
bracket???". Also, I didn't like #[ ]# anyway because chicken often makes
[] and () similar, so I read #[ ]# to be sort of a vector notation
which only deviates from a #() when I see the ]#, but that could be
pages later...

How about:

#{ ... }#

That isn't legal C/C++ so it should work, and it is even in the flavor of the
language.

-pete