[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: #\a octothorpe syntax vs SRFI 10
> From: bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx>
> >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 [....]
> 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.
Perhaps but I don't see why not. It /can/ be fixed and if this SRFI
is one that exposes the need for a fix.....