R6RS versus the pattern operators
John Cowan
(17 Aug 2020 12:55 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(17 Aug 2020 13:15 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Fwd: R6RS versus the pattern operators
John Cowan
(17 Aug 2020 13:38 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(17 Aug 2020 13:48 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
John Cowan
(17 Aug 2020 14:59 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(17 Aug 2020 15:27 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
John Cowan
(17 Aug 2020 15:48 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (17 Aug 2020 15:53 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
John Cowan
(17 Aug 2020 17:03 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Shiro Kawai
(17 Aug 2020 17:21 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Shiro Kawai
(17 Aug 2020 20:21 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Felix Thibault
(17 Aug 2020 22:22 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Shiro Kawai
(17 Aug 2020 22:35 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(18 Aug 2020 05:55 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(24 Aug 2020 14:02 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Felix Thibault
(27 Aug 2020 00:45 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(27 Aug 2020 07:50 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Lassi Kortela
(17 Aug 2020 13:52 UTC)
|
||
Re: R6RS versus the pattern operators
Adam Nelson
(17 Aug 2020 14:41 UTC)
|
Am Mo., 17. Aug. 2020 um 17:48 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 11:27 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote: > >> I have tried to understand R6RS's lexical syntax. According to it, >> non-"peculiar" identifiers (that have nothing to do with "@") have to >> start with an "initial". The set of initials, however, does not >> contain "@". Or is there some erratum? > > > No, quite right, and therefore @foo is not an identifier. However, xxxxxx@ and xxxxxx@bar are identifiers, because "@" is a <subsequent>. Therefore object/@ is an identifier too. Oh, sorry, now I see where our confusion has come from. By object/@ I didn't mean the identifier |object/@|. I meant the pair of alternatives "object" and "@". SRFI 204 says that "object" is synonymous to "@".