Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit: > I'd prefer that ALL characters are legal in symbols, and we carefully > distinguish "allowed in symbols" and "allowed unescaped in the written > representation of symbols" (bearing in mind that a written symbol from a > full Unicode system might be read in by an ASCII-only system) in > discussion :-)
Well, I think the most we can require, given our policies on characters and strings, is that a character is legal in a symbol iff it's legal in a string. There's nothing we can do about the fact that some systems will support non-ASCII characters (or other restricted repertoires) and others will not. In my original proposal, I tried to work around this problem by having some systems support \x3034; as a single-character symbol and others as a seven-character symbol, but the edge cases don't work properly: you wind up with some symbols having two string equivalents and vice versa. > The text on identifiers in 2.1 says that . is not an identifier; does > that mean I *cannot* write (define |.| 123) and then (+ |.| 456)? No. > If I get a moment I will carefully read all relevant sections of the > report and suggest some fixes... Sounds like a plan. -- John Cowan [email protected] http://ccil.org/~cowan The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land, to add something to the extent and the solidity of our possessions. --Thomas Henry Huxley _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
