On Sat, Apr 11, 2026 at 8:40 PM Peter McGoron <xxxxxx@mcgoron.com> wrote:

> For those languages, are there matrix literals and is there syntax for
> specifying the lower/upper bounds of those?

No, there isn't.

> (Granted, neither has lower bound support.)

I think that's the key point.  I know of no languages with both array
literals and lower bounds.

> 1. Most implementations will probably parse bounds by calling their
> number parser, so I feel like it will be supported on many
> implementation anyways. Adding a separate parser is probably more work.

Granted, but the EBNF is for specification, not implementation.  If
you look at the R[57]RS EBNF, you'll see that the radix is determined
by the definition of <number> and threaded through the rules until you
reach the rules for <digit R>.

> 2. There are cases where one may want a 256x256 matrix, and specifying
> that as #x100 is easier.

Fair point.

> The change is to delete the explicit <integer> definition and say that
> it is a Scheme number restricted to be an integer. It is not a major change.

Okay, done, with s/integer/exact integer/.  I really think allowing
bounds like 4.0 is overgeneralizing.