Peter Bex scripsit: > Yeah, # is pretty special. The spec should probably leave that > unspecified.
So it is. > Maybe a whitelist of characters that are definitely allowed > in symbols? There is such a list (of ASCII characters only) in 2.1. > Several (most?) schemes actually try to read until the next > s-expression separator and convert it to a number. If that fails, it's > a symbol and taken as-is. I'm not sure this behaviour should be > standardized as it's very "loose" and poorly defined. The R7RS-draft behavior is that a sequence of letters, numbers, specified ASCII symbols, and non-ASCII characters in certain general categories is an identifier, *provided* it does not have a prefix which is a number. This is easy to state verbally, but makes for a messy BNF. -- Henry S. Thompson said, / "Syntactic, structural, John Cowan Value constraints we / Express on the fly." [email protected] Simon St. Laurent: "Your / Incomprehensible http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Abracadabralike / schemas must die!" _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
