On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Andy Wingo <[email protected]> wrote: > > What is the deal with PECULIAR IDENTIFIER? Is +.+ useful for someone? > It seems an odd production, given that implementations are free to > extend the set of valid identifiers. The R5RS was clearer here.
The English rule is very simple: [...] in all implementations a sequence of letters, digits, and ``extended alphabetic characters'' that does not have a prefix which is a valid number is an identifier. This was chosen to allow a wide range of new identifiers, leave room for numeric extensions, and remove _all_ of the hard-coded peculiar identifiers found in R5RS and R6RS. Unfortunately, since BNF doesn't have "exception" rules the actual rules are a little clumsy. -- Alex _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
