This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 1 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 1 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, Doug Evans wrote: > The document specifies both .iota and iota. as >[...] also, Harvey Stein wrote: > II. .iota & iota.. > > I also felt the same way as Sergei Egorov <esl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> when I > first read about .iota & iota., namely that the names are less than > ideal in that they're problematic identifiers [...] Problematic identifiers indeed. RScheme won't (by default) read `.iota'. On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, Doug Evans wrote: > While these may be a generalization of APL's iota, > what's the rationale for them, vs something like: > > (iota count) ; start=0, step=1 > (iota count start) ; step=1 > (iota count start step) I agree with Doug, here. I don't know APL, but this specification for iota is both (Scheme) readable and straightforward (its args are easier to parse, too!) I suggest that a revised SRFI-1 be submitted, dropping `iota.' and `.iota' in favor of `iota'. -- Donovan Kolbly ( RScheme Development Group ( d.kolbly@xxxxxxxxxxx ( http://www.rscheme.org/~donovan/