Re: #\a octothorpe syntax vs SRFI 10
Thomas Lord 02 Jan 2005 09:10 UTC
This part of the Scheme standard (and the parts it refers to):
#e #i #b #o #d #x
These are used in the notation for numbers (section *note Syntax
of numerical constants::.).
was a mistake. It means, for example that
#xafebabe
is a number whereas
#cafebabe
is not. Yet the space of things that "fit in" with Scheme's top-level
approach to delimeters and identifiers suggests that every token of
the (abstractly stated) form
#<IDENTIFIER>
should be treated the same way. In essense, the number syntax is a
very "selfish" allocation of the available syntactic space under
octothorpe (and now, in this thread, people seem to want to
recapitulate and lock-in that error).
Would it have killed people to write:
#x"afebabe"
or
#array (<array-spec> <data> ....)
-t