|
Lexical syntax for boxes
Lassi Kortela
(09 Nov 2022 16:34 UTC)
|
|
Re: Lexical syntax for boxes
Marc Feeley
(09 Nov 2022 16:40 UTC)
|
|
Re: Lexical syntax for boxes
Lassi Kortela
(09 Nov 2022 16:48 UTC)
|
|
Re: Lexical syntax for boxes Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Nov 2022 16:41 UTC)
|
|
Re: Lexical syntax for boxes
Lassi Kortela
(09 Nov 2022 16:56 UTC)
|
|
Re: Lexical syntax for boxes
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(09 Nov 2022 17:04 UTC)
|
|
Re: Lexical syntax for boxes
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(09 Nov 2022 17:12 UTC)
|
|
Re: Lexical syntax for boxes
Lassi Kortela
(09 Nov 2022 17:42 UTC)
|
|
Re: Lexical syntax for boxes
Marc Feeley
(09 Nov 2022 17:24 UTC)
|
|
Re: Lexical syntax for boxes
Lassi Kortela
(09 Nov 2022 17:26 UTC)
|
|
Re: Lexical syntax for boxes
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(09 Nov 2022 17:32 UTC)
|
|
Re: Lexical syntax for boxes
Lassi Kortela
(09 Nov 2022 17:54 UTC)
|
|
Re: Lexical syntax for boxes
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(09 Nov 2022 18:55 UTC)
|
Am Mi., 9. Nov. 2022 um 17:34 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>: > > From the SRFI: "Racket, Gambit, SISC, Chez, and Chicken all support the > lexical syntax #&datum to create a literal box" > > The current versions of Gambit, Chez, and Chicken raise a syntax error > on #&123 No, at least not for Chez. The following program prints the box: #!chezscheme (import (rnrs)) (display '#&123) (newline) > > Racket works as advertised. I'm not able to test SISC. >
