on waste-of-time arguments....
Thomas Lord
(19 Jul 2005 23:52 UTC)
|
Re: on waste-of-time arguments....
John.Cowan
(20 Jul 2005 02:57 UTC)
|
Re: on waste-of-time arguments....
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(20 Jul 2005 03:04 UTC)
|
Re: on waste-of-time arguments....
John.Cowan
(20 Jul 2005 04:42 UTC)
|
Re: on waste-of-time arguments.... Thomas Bushnell BSG (20 Jul 2005 04:53 UTC)
|
Re: on waste-of-time arguments....
John.Cowan
(20 Jul 2005 05:04 UTC)
|
Re: on waste-of-time arguments....
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(20 Jul 2005 05:14 UTC)
|
Re: on waste-of-time arguments.... Thomas Bushnell BSG 20 Jul 2005 04:52 UTC
"John.Cowan" <xxxxxx@reutershealth.com> writes: > What makes you think there's a "right answer"? Why can't two or more > different groups disagree? We already have disagreement, as indicated > by the various R5RS implementations, as to whether case-folding in ASCII > identifiers is the right thing or not. And in such cases we can simply *not standardize*. If there is no Right Answer, the great tradition of Scheme standardization has been to hold off. > For that matter, I note that while the non-normative section 2.1 of > R5RS says: > > The precise rules for forming identifiers vary among > implementations of Scheme, but in all implementations a sequence > of letters, digits, and "extended alphabetic characters" > that begins with a character that cannot begin a number is an > identifier. In addition, +, -, and ... are identifiers. > > the formal syntax in 7.1 prescribes a fixed syntax for identifiers that > does not permit any such "extended alphabetic characters." I think you have it backwards. 7.1 is not the normative section, 2.1 is. Thomas