[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: "srfi-110" <srfi-110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Subject*: Re: The ". $" notation*From*: "David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:28:15 -0400 (EDT)*Delivered-to*: srfi-110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <CAF+kUQWcQJOpPdvST04wy8QiiF+w++KhPFS33F4UPCU85_2r=g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*References*: <CAF+kUQX5mK=VStZyu6zfGQj9SE+J4D=dHPF6+d-T-5a+tZ7XvA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130317.154441.695066990312419885.shiro@xxxxxxxx> <CAF+kUQX3ghwPo3Jk95Na0zY3kuxtbLQ-RyzZvthYo7Q-soTXyQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <E1UHcsS-0001aL-1g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAF+kUQWcQJOpPdvST04wy8QiiF+w++KhPFS33F4UPCU85_2r=g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Reply-to*: dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Alan Manuel Gloria: > There's a subtle problem with ". $" though... > > First: > > a $ b > ===> > (a b) ; as described in the rationale for SUBLIST. > > Then: > > a . $ b > ===> > (a . b) > > ??? Bug, and I think fixed. Current development version of "unsweeten" and the ANTLR implementation seem to work. The Scheme implementation now does this: $ printf 'a . $ b\n\n' | ./unsweeten (a b) Supporting ". $" does have a slight annoyance; it creates a minor ambiguity in the grammar (basically, like a "dangling else" clause in many langauges). I've been able to avoid those so far. It's not a crisis, because we can easily make it go first, but it is an annoyance. --- David A. Wheeler

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: The ". $" notation***From:*Alan Manuel Gloria

**References**:**The ". $" notation (was: Re: how useful are collecting lists?)***From:*Alan Manuel Gloria

**Re: The ". $" notation***From:*Shiro Kawai

**Re: The ". $" notation***From:*Alan Manuel Gloria

**Re: The ". $" notation***From:*David A. Wheeler

**Re: The ". $" notation***From:*Alan Manuel Gloria

- Prev by Date:
**Re: The ". $" notation** - Next by Date:
**Handling scomments after "."** - Previous by thread:
**Re: The ". $" notation** - Next by thread:
**Re: The ". $" notation** - Index(es):