[r6rs-discuss] @ should be a valid identifier

[Shiro Kawai]

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.

--shiro


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
>