I'm confused I thought pico didn't do anything else than integers?
In effect if I write (1.2) I would expect to have a dotted pair (1 .
2), not something else (If I hadn't seen Tomas' example).
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wro=
> 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
> =A0 : '(a .b)
> =A0 -> (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
> =A0 : '(abc"def"ghi)
> =A0 -> (abc "def" ghi)
> which I think is consistent with
> =A0 : '(abc(def)ghi)
> =A0 -> (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
> =A0 ( a ( b ) c )
> instead of
> =A0 (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=3dunsubscribe