[r6rs-discuss] @ should be a valid identifier
shiro at lava.net
Fri Jul 4 02:59:04 EDT 2008
Ah, I overlooked ",@ foo" case. I think Gauche does it wrong.
An implementation can pase ", at foo" and ",@ foo" as
(unquote-splicing foo), and still allow an extended syntax of
symbols beginning with '@'. (To say (unquote @foo), one can
write ", @foo", or if an implementation also supports CL-like
vertical-bar escape, ,|@foo|).
But, I agree that it's not clean. This is already diverged
from r6rs-discuss, so I'd stop.
From: John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] @ should be a valid identifier
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:25:33 -0400
> 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