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

Re: on waste-of-time arguments....



"John.Cowan" <jcowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> What makes you think there's a "right answer"?  Why can't two or more
> different groups disagree?  We already have disagreement, as indicated
> by the various R5RS implementations, as to whether case-folding in ASCII
> identifiers is the right thing or not.

And in such cases we can simply *not standardize*.  If there is no
Right Answer, the great tradition of Scheme standardization has been
to hold off.  

> For that matter, I note that while the non-normative section 2.1 of
> R5RS says:
>
> 	The precise rules for forming identifiers vary among
> 	implementations of Scheme, but in all implementations a sequence
> 	of letters, digits, and "extended alphabetic characters"
> 	that begins with a character that cannot begin a number is an
> 	identifier. In addition, +, -, and ... are identifiers.
>
> the formal syntax in 7.1 prescribes a fixed syntax for identifiers that
> does not permit any such "extended alphabetic characters."

I think you have it backwards.  7.1 is not the normative section, 2.1
is.

Thomas