On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 05:10:59PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
> Hope this is OK now, and doesn't break anything.

I have to say that I still don't like the situation.

To me it does not feel "right" that the dot has such a dual nature. It
is now both a meta-character (in dotted pairs) and a normal character
(in atoms).

While now, for example, the following works as Tomas desires

   : '(a .b)
   -> (a .b)

i.e. '.b' is a symbol (while we got (a . b) before), it is still not
possible to have the symbol '.' in a list.

Is (a . b) a list of three symbols or a dotted pair? The list (a '. b)
is possible, on the other hand.

The same applies to other meta-characters as well. As before, we have

   : '(abc"def"ghi)
   -> (abc "def" ghi)

which I think is consistent with

   : '(abc(def)ghi)
   -> (abc (def) ghi)

Or should we, here too, insist on white space surrounding
meta-characters? The we would end up having to write a list as

   ( a ( b ) c )

instead of

   (a (b) c)

I think the historical solution, where '.' was a plain meta-character,
was the most consistent one. The dot was simply not allowed within
internal symbols. Tt was only the representation of fixed point numbers
that broke it.

What do other people think?

- Alex
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to