[r6rs-discuss] @ should be a valid identifier
cowan at ccil.org
Fri Jul 4 01:25:33 EDT 2008
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
More information about the r6rs-discuss