Andy Wingo scripsit: > WHITESPACE is specified as SPACE OR NEWLINE. Should TAB be included? > LF? Some unicode category?
I don't think so. Schemers don't use hard tabs anyway, and the other Unicode whitespace characters are for special purposes only. Supporting them means the lowest-level character dispatcher has to be UTF-8 aware on UTF-8 systems, whereas all other significant characters come from the ASCII repertoire. > 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. This allows identifiers like +foo+, that can't be mistaken for numbers. > I am bothered by the SYNTACTIC KEYWORD section. Whether or not > something is a keyword depends on scope; only sometimes does it only > depend on name. Yes. I'm wondering if all that syntax-dependent stuff, which dates back to R4RS, shoudn't be removed. Editorial ticket filed. > Do people really use the #-is-a-placeholder-digit thing? Yuk! This > should be allowed (as any implementation extension would be) but not > required. I tried to get rid of that, but the WG went for backward compatibility. > The INFINITY -> +nan.0 seems a bit sloppy, naming-wise. If you knows of a better 'ole, go there. I tried for a bit to find a better name. > Also, DEFINITION -> (begin DEFINITION*); this does not allow > > (begin (begin (define a 1) a)) Editorial ticket filed. -- John Cowan [email protected] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Most languages are dramatically underdescribed, and at least one is dramatically overdescribed. Still other languages are simultaneously overdescribed and underdescribed. Welsh pertains to the third category. --Alan King _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
