Syntax for symbols is more permissive than R6RS

Hi, I was poking around the reader while working on the Unicode stuff, and I found that there aren't checks for a lot of symbol names that R6RS considers to be invalid. The following line has 11 dodgy but not invalid variable names: + - ... 00A @ [ \ ] { | } They can be strung

Re: Syntax for symbols is more permissive than R6RS

Hi! Mike Gran spk...@yahoo.com writes: I was poking around the reader while working on the Unicode stuff, and I found that there aren't checks for a lot of symbol names that R6RS considers to be invalid. It's actually more permissive than R5RS as well. For instance, `1+' and `1-' are not

syncase in boot-9

Hello all, A brief note. I have syncase in boot-9, with define-macro implemented in terms of syntax-case. This work can be found on the syncase-in-boot-9 branch. It's not quite ready yet, as there are some Scheme bits that still don't compile. I had to add docstring support to psyntax --

[PATCH] Symbols and keywords longer than 128 chars cause exception

In master * test-suite/tests/reader.test (read-options): Add test for long postfix keywords. * libguile/read.c (scm_read_mixed_case_symbol): Fix exception on symbols are greater than 128 chars. Also, colons are not stripped from long postfix keywords. ---