Stefan, Also, that grammar doesn't support inf/nan.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Stefan Edwards <[email protected]> wrote: > There is also the grammar as it is laid out in TSPL3: > > http://scheme.com/tspl3/grammar.html#./grammar:h0 > > Which is similar to what Mr. Robbin's wrote above, save for hoisting the '+' > & '-' rules into the complex production above. > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:00 PM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Andrew Robbins scripsit: >> >> > On a more serious note, is there any harm in rewriting >> > the current syntax a little more clearly? For example: >> >> I like this proposal. I have asked a friend of mine who knows how to >> use proof engines to see if this grammar is equivalent to the existing >> grammar. >> >> -- >> John Cowan [email protected] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan >> Statistics don't help a great deal in making important decisions. >> Most people have more than the average number of feet, but I'm not about >> to start a company selling shoes in threes. --Ross Gardler >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Scheme-reports mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports > > > > > -- > ==== > Q. How many Prolog programmers does it take to change a lightbulb? > A. No. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
