I'm guessing you're looking at section "2.1. Identifiers", specifically this quote:
"An identifier is any sequence of letters, digits, and “extended identifier characters” provided that it does not have a prefix which is a valid number." Since "1+" has the prefix "1", which is a valid number, I would agree that R7RS does not require implementations to parse "1+" as an identifier, and if you wrote a program using an un-escaped 1+, you could not be sure it would run on all implementations. However, I think it is *permitted* for implementations to recognize additional tokens as identifiers. R7RS does not say that 1+ is a number, or anything else, and I don't think it requires the reader to raise an exception, so if Guile accepts it as an identifier, that doesn't seem to disqualify Guile as a conforming implementation. --John Boyle *Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do.* --Knuth On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:58 AM, ceving <cev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Am Freitag, 8. November 2013 18:57:32 UTC+1 schrieb John Cowan: >> >> The final draft of R7RS-small has been ratified by a unanimous vote of >> the Scheme Language Steering Committee. >> >> <http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/raw-attachment/wiki/WikiStart/r7rs.pdf> >> >> > The new standard seems to ban Guile's 1+ operator. It must be quoted in > R7RS |1+|. > > > _______________________________________________ > Scheme-reports mailing list > Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org > http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports > >
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
