Re: #\a octothorpe syntax vs SRFI 10
bear 02 Jan 2005 17:57 UTC
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005, Thomas Lord wrote:
>
>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.
I think I agree. Numeric syntax as currently done uses up too
much of the limited octothorpe syntax, and ought to be revisited.
But not in this SRFI.
Bear