[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.....

-t