Re: [Scheme-reports] auxiliary syntax

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli@x> wrote:

A few minutes ago, Alex Shinn wrote:
>
> Not that I'm accusing you of doing this (at least in the post I'm
> replying to) but I'm wary of such a situation occurring, so I'm not
> going to address the rest of your post via mail.  Rather I'll
> summarize the issues as best I see it for both sides via the wiki.

I completely agree with avoiding flamage -- but instead of ignoring
such posts, what I usually do to avoid them is try to get them back on
track.  In this context, being on-topic would be the demonstration
that I asked for: this would be useful to see whether this is truly a
case where breaking hygiene is justified, or whether it can be
addressed elegantly without doing so.

I've started to list some examples of sexp-based

pure data languages at:

  http://community.schemewiki.org/?sexp-language

None of these examples are macros (although some

provide convenience syntax wrappers).

There is a certain amount of style and preference involved.

Yes you could use combinators or macros to write regular

expressions instead of SREs, but it would be too heavy and

verbose for my taste.  Config files and SXML, on the other

hand, are data languages by definition - making the otherwise

defeats the purpose.  Using macros to sometimes recognize

parts of them, however, is not outside the realm of possibility.

-- 

Alex

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports