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

Re: #\a octothorpe syntax vs SRFI 10



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