Re: Keywords

Paul R. Wilson (wilson@cs.utexas.edu)
Thu, 5 Feb 1998 19:40:41 -0600

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Jim Blandy: "Re: multiple return values"
Previous message: Mark Galassi: "Re: multiple return values"
Maybe in reply to: Alain MELLAN: "Keywords"
Next in thread: Jim Blandy: "Re: Keywords"

>From owner-guile@cygnus.com Wed Feb 4 05:46:08 1998
>Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 11:40:03 +0100
>From: Alain MELLAN <alain.mellan@st.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>To: guile@cygnus.com
>Reply-To: alain.mellan@st.com
>Subject: Keywords
>X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.14 XEmacs Lucid
>Sender: owner-guile@cygnus.com
>Precedence: bulk
>Status: O
>
>Currently, guile only supports :<ident> keywords. I need to have
>posfixed keywords, <ident>: to be compatible with the Bigloo
>compiler.

RScheme and some other systems also use postfix keywords.

I'd recommend that keywords be standardly postfix, or ambidextrous.

Does anybody have much code that would break if symbols of the
form foo: were considered keywords rather than variable names?

I'd guess that most instances of symbols of that form are either
uses in data, where it doesn't matter what the evaluation rule
is, or uses for macros where keywordness is desired.

I don't really know, though. Opinions?

Next message: Jim Blandy: "Re: multiple return values"
Previous message: Mark Galassi: "Re: multiple return values"
Maybe in reply to: Alain MELLAN: "Keywords"
Next in thread: Jim Blandy: "Re: Keywords"