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

Re: #\a octothorpe syntax vs SRFI 10

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 58 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 58 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

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.