[r6rs-discuss] Lexical Syntax
William D Clinger
will at ccs.neu.edu
Mon Nov 12 18:46:11 EST 2007
Felix Klock wrote:
> I should have said "either +nan.0 and +inf.0 and their ilk are case-
> sensitive, or there is a bug in the formal grammar, or we are going
> to agree to this method of interpretation where we informally modify
> the formal grammar."
> None of the above.
I agree with that part of Aziz's comment.
In my opinion, the formal grammar governs. After all,
we call ourselves computer scientists.
One thing we can all agree upon is that chapter 4 does
not present a consistent description of the lexical
syntax. Unless we are willing to accuse the editors
of deliberate inconsistency, we must conclude there
are mistakes in chapter 4. The question is whether
those mistakes lie in the formal grammar, the prose,
Since Aziz has chosen to implement the prose rather
than the formal grammar, and we have done the opposite,
it is clear that portable R6RS code must confine itself
to the intersection of the languages described by the
formal grammar and by the prose of R6RS chapter 4.
Since "portable R6RS code" is basically an oxymoron
anyway, I agree with Aziz that this is no big deal
for the R6RS.
It becomes an issue for ERR5RS, however, because that
standard doesn't have to copy the mistakes of the R6RS.
This mailing list is not the place for that discussion.
More information about the r6rs-discuss