[r6rs-discuss] @ should be a valid identifier
shiro at lava.net
Fri Jul 4 01:20:59 EDT 2008
The 'conformity' of R5RS is pretty vague, I think.
My understanding is that any upper-compatible lexical extentions
(which R6RS explicitly prohibits) don't break conformance. Right?
From: John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] @ should be a valid identifier
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:01:56 -0400
> Neil Jerram scripsit:
> > And yet... R5RS systems, using SXML, have somehow managed to live with
> > this ambiguity. Did R6RS need to choose what appears to be a
> > relatively extreme method of resolving it?
> R5RS has exactly the same constraint, and to the extent that actual Scheme
> systems allow @ initially in an identifier, they don't conform to R5RS.
> John Cowan cowan at ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan
> Female celebrity stalker, on a hot morning in Cairo:
> "Imagine, Colonel Lawrence, ninety-two already!"
> El Auruns's reply: "Many happy returns of the day!"
> r6rs-discuss mailing list
> r6rs-discuss at lists.r6rs.org
More information about the r6rs-discuss