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 <[email protected]> wr= ote: > 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 > clean. > > 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 > sometimes. > > Cheers, > - Alex > -- > UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:[email protected]?subject=3dunsubscribe > -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
