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

Re: #\a octothorpe syntax vs SRFI 10




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