On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, Doug Evans wrote:

> The document specifies both .iota and iota. as
>[...]

also, Harvey Stein wrote:

> II. .iota & iota..
>
> I also felt the same way as Sergei Egorov <xxxxxx@informaxinc.com> when I
> first read about .iota & iota., namely that the names are less than
> ideal in that they're problematic identifiers [...]

Problematic identifiers indeed.  RScheme won't (by default) read `.iota'.

On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, Doug Evans wrote:

> While these may be a generalization of APL's iota,
> what's the rationale for them, vs something like:
>
> (iota count)            ; start=0, step=1
> (iota count start)      ; step=1
> (iota count start step)

I agree with Doug, here.  I don't know APL, but this specification for
iota is both (Scheme) readable and straightforward (its args are easier
to parse, too!)

I suggest that a revised SRFI-1 be submitted, dropping `iota.' and `.iota'
in favor of `iota'.

-- Donovan Kolbly                    (  RScheme Development Group
                                     (  xxxxxx@rscheme.org
				     (  http://www.rscheme.org/~donovan/