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)

Re: Lexical syntax for boxes Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 09 Nov 2022 17:04 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]