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 17:55 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>: > > > No, at least not for Chez. > > > > (display '#&123) > > That works, too. > > I've updated <https://registry.scheme.org/#hash-syntax> and added the > following note: "A quote ' next to an implementation's name means the > syntax must be quoted in that implementation." The syntax itself does not need to be quoted. If you want to make it a valid Scheme expression, you have to use the quote expression from the standard. In any case, this is not a Chez thing, but an R[56]RS thing; many syntactic data (vectors, bytevectors, ...) do not form a valid expression. I don't think your note belongs to this table in the Scheme registry. For otherwise, you would need the same note for vectors, bytevectors, etc. at least for R[56]RS implementations. Moreover, the table is about lexical syntax and #&123 is a valid lexical syntax (in Chez Scheme mode): Just enter (read) at the REPL and then enter #&123. > > The entry is now: > > #&... Box ['Chez, 'Gambit, Racket]