This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 75 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 75 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
bear scripsit: > I agree that certain characters ought not appear in > identifiers without use of some escape mechanism. But > rather than list them, I'd prefer to do it by category. That's what I did, only rather than using simply the General Category field in UnicodeData, I also used the Pattern_Syntax property in PropList (at http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/PropList.txt ) The list was not definitional, simply an attempt to give people a feel for the kinds of characters included by the property-based definition. Essentially, the characters on the list are those that are both Pattern_Syntax and punctuation. > If we want to reserve a bunch of characters for reader > macros in implementations where reader macros are definable, > I'd suggest the class SO (other symbols, including dingbats); > they're eyecatching, occasionally iconic, and for the most > part linguistically neutral. Not only are they not always neutral (as you noted), but they cover very many useful symbols that are suitable for naming either functions or variables. -- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com jcowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx There are books that are at once excellent and boring. Those that at once leap to the mind are Thoreau's Walden, Emerson's Essays, George Eliot's Adam Bede, and Landor's Dialogues. --Somerset Maugham