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 18:55 UTC

Am Mi., 9. Nov. 2022 um 18:54 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>:
>
> >> "A quote ' next to an implementation's name means the syntax is not
> >> self-evaluating in that implementation, and must be quoted to form a
> >> valid expression."
>
> > That would still be a category error (categorial? categorical?).
>
> Aha, because lexical syntax isn't "evaluated". It's read into datums
> ("forms" in Common Lisp parlance), and those are evaluated. If you got
> the same datums from e.g. binary file, evaluation would work the same.

Precisely.

> > Keep this sentence but next to a table with syntactic data representations.
>
> The sole purpose of lexical syntax (apart from directives) is to
> represent data, isn't it? Wouldn't the table of "syntactic data
> representations" contain lots of duplication?

Hmmm... so it is probably better to make a differently labeled table,
namely "Primitive (expression) syntax"; see R6RS, chapter 9, for
example.

An entry there would not be

#(...)         ;; R7RS
#vu8(...)   ;; R6RS

but

<vector>          ;; R7RS
<bytevector>   ;; R[67]RS

reflecting your observation that it is about the datums and not their
syntactical representations.