But then you get the kind of break down you referred to earlier?
However for me this is not a problem I've always had space between the
dot and the rest anyway.
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wr=
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:04:54PM +0200, Henrik Sarvell wrote:
>> Yes you should revert back, and I suppose the best solution is to
>> implement the change you were talking about above. How much overhead
>> would it introduce?
> Perhaps not much overhead, but it needs another quirky rule, like
> =A0 While reading characters of an atom, as long as the result looks like
> =A0 a number, allow the dot, otherwise not
> The problem is that Lisp, as opposed to other languages, allows symbols
> to begin with a digit or a sign character (e.g. '1+" or '-123symbol').
> So, for a trivial solution , '-12.3symbol' would allow the dot despite
> it is not a number, while 'a.b' would split at the dot. This is not
> Better would be first to read the whole atom, analyse it, and then
> decide whether it is a number or not. This would break the current
> simple single-character-look-ahead algorithm, though.
> So for now I would tend to stay with Tomas' proposal, in handling the
> dot as a meta-character only when not part of an atom (i.e. surrounded
> by white space or other meta-characters like '(' and ')'). The advantage
> is that then we can use '.' as part of symbol names, which is quite nice
> - Alex
> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=3dunsubscribe