[r6rs-discuss] @ should be a valid identifier

[John Cowan]

Shiro Kawai scripsit:

> 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?

True.  But this isn't upward compatible:  , at foo and ,@ foo are both instances
of splicing unquote, not of unquoted @foo and unquoted @.

-- 
So they play that [tune] on                     John Cowan
their fascist banjos, eh?                       cowan at ccil.org
        --Great-Souled Sam                      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan