It's still at an interim state, but I think it's getting to the point where it will be generally useful.
I did a bunch of minor reformatting, and took a several of your responses and translated them into the main thread, removing the back-and-forth: I don't think the discussion is as valuable as a clear statement of the design.
I have a big, sloppy mess of a system involving at least one additional readtable, that breaks under the syntax-control branch. That's going to be my test case for forcing myself to understand this.
Best, r
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Robert P. Goldman rpgoldman@sift.info wrote:
It's still at an interim state, but I think it's getting to the point where it will be generally useful.
I pushed more modifications to the doc/syntax-control.txt in the syntax-control branch.
I believe the plan B should be clearly separated from the plan A and clearly marked as not implemented and not intended to be implemented.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org I've never been able to figure out for *whom* we're saving the irreplaceable resources. If *we* aren't allowed to use them, then the next generation shouldn't use them either, nor the one after that. — Harry Browne (HIFFIAUW)
Faré wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Robert P. Goldman rpgoldman@sift.info wrote:
It's still at an interim state, but I think it's getting to the point where it will be generally useful.
I pushed more modifications to the doc/syntax-control.txt in the syntax-control branch.
I believe the plan B should be clearly separated from the plan A and clearly marked as not implemented and not intended to be implemented.
I have made that change, and also put in pointers to the discussion of readtable binding in the hyperspec (for those reading as org-mode).
I have *not* gone over the discussion of the actual design again; I wanted to restrict myself to this big restructuring in one commit.
Best, r
-
Faré -
Robert P. Goldman