[plt-scheme] keywords, take 2 (a backward-compatible change)

What about

  ::
  ;
    `
    ~

?

Anyway, I would be glad with #: too.

--
Hans


Matthew Flatt schreef:

>At Mon, 03 Oct 2005 20:23:34 +0100, Matt Jadud wrote:
>  
>
>>[...] Does it make programming problems that are 
>>currently very difficult to solve much easier?
>>    
>>
>
>My problem is that I have too many functions with variants or lot of
>options. The list of suspects will surprise no one, and here are the
>first ones that come to mind:
>
> * make-struct-type
>
> * slide, side/title, slide/title/center, slide/name/title/center,
>   page-para, page-para/r, page-para*/r, 
>   lt-find, rt-find, ct-find, lb-find, rb-find cb-find, lbl-find,
>   etc. (It gets too painful even to write out complete sets!)
>
> * pack
>
>People with experience using keywords tell me that keywords can solve
>this sort of problem. I'm willing to give it a try.
>
>  
>
>>I guess I'm just curious why it is a feature suggested for the base 
>>language, and why it isn't/cannot be a feature of a language in the tower?
>>    
>>
>
>The problem shows up enough that, if keywords are the solution,
>keywords will be used frequently in the base language.
>
>
>I've become convinced, however, that keywords as colon-prefixed or
>colon-suffixed "symbols" will create too many compatibility issues in
>the short run. It's surely not the right thing to do this week.
>
>I like the idea of `#:'-prefixed keywords. It lets us experiment with
>keywords without creating lots of new problems. If keywords prove
>valuable enough, then one day when we're making other big changes,
>maybe it will make sense to introduce a colon-suffixed syntax for
>keywords.
>
>
>For those who like the idea of keywords: are `#:' keywords good enough,
>or is the `#:' syntax so intrusive/ugly that the experiment is useless
>or misleading?
>
>
>Matthew
>
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>  
>