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

[Category 5]

felix <address@hidden> writes:

> Personally, I don't care much wether it's #{ ... }# or #[ ... ]#.  The
> problem with the former is that it would some changes to the compiler
> (which uses it extensibly for another hackish purpose), and that would
> cause a bootstrapping problem (not serious, though). The problem with
> the latter is that the association with embedded C code seems a bit
> far-fetched.

Like #> ... <#?  =)

I don't think there are many syntaxes for embedding foreign code that
wouldn't seem a bit far-fetched because it's, well, foreign.  {} is
about the only one that happens to win there.

> Another option would of course be to drop it entirely and use
> `foreign-code'.

How about this:

    statement sequence:  #{ ... }#
    typed value:         #{[c-string] var}#

> Absolutely. I use [] quite a lot as a replacement for normal parens,
> especially when nesting gets deep:
>
> (let-values ([(x y z) ...])
>   ...)
>
> appears to be more readable (for me) than
>
> (let-values (((x y z) ...))
>   ...)

I agree, but I also think that let-values is a worst-case example.

--