Guile Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Reader option to permit brackets as parentheses
Chris Bitmead <email@example.com> writes:
> Greg Badros wrote:
> > You're looking at it in the wrong way-- other
> > implementations permit square brackets, so allowing Guile
> > to read that code natively increases the portability of
> > the code.
> Allowing Guile to process C++ code would make it more portable too, but
> it does'nt mean that it's desirable. Anyway, if I remember right  are
> reserved tokens for possible future use in the standard. If you use them
> like you would use () you are potentially digging yourself into a hole.
> And if they're not reserved tokens, they should be allowed as
> identifiers. I should be able to make a variable called [foo]][ if I
Actually no, although Guile will allow it. The standard enumerates
what characters are permitted in identifiers and [ and ] are not among
them.  are reserved for future extension but I doubt they will ever
be given a specific meaning given how many implementations allow them
to be interchangable with () and the fact that RnRS standardization
> Either way, making  and () interchangable is a waste of the
> character namespace.
> >Besides, several implementations let you
> > use , and as you pointed out, it's easy enough to add to
> > any other
> > system that doesn't support , why not make it easy for
> > Guile programmers to write more readable code?
> I fail to see how it makes more readable code. Apart from anything else
> your code will look alien to every other scheme programmer on the
> planet. Can that be more readable? It would also make writing the code
> more difficult. When to use a  and when to use () ? You'll spend half
> your day exchanging bracket types trying to make it more asthetically
> pleasing. Write a text editor that does colour matching on parenthesis
> or something.
For what it's worth, I have seen academic papers by RnRS authors use
 interchangably with (). That's a fairly strong endorsement.
I hate to admit it but I actually found it somewhat more readable (the
usual convention is to use square brackets consisently with certain
special forms, e.g. cond and the let family).
Guile Home |
Main Index |