On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 08:54, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote: > Hi, > > Am 24.06.2011 um 01:59 schrieb Sean Corfield: > >> Which is the whole point: the docs ascribe meaning to a/b and to / but >> do not ascribe meaning to a/b/c > > I'm sorry, but what is difficult about “it can be used *once*”. I understand > that as “there can be zero or one slashes in a symbol”. Everything else is an > invalid symbol and feeding it to the reader is undefined behaviour. The > reader does not promise anything about what happens then. > > Similar applies to “symbols” containing eg. ö. > > So I don't get your point.
Ah. Undefined behavior by virtue of the fact that it goes umentioned in the documentation. How tautological. Alternately one could consider explicitly documenting undefined behavior. I think that's why we were talking past eachother. You were expressing the former; I was expecting the latter. So a hypothetical second implementation of the Clojure reader need not duplicate the official Clojure reader's behavior on this point. // Ben -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
