Felix Klock wrote: > I should have said "either +nan.0 and +inf.0 and their ilk are case- > sensitive, or there is a bug in the formal grammar, or we are going > to agree to this method of interpretation where we informally modify > the formal grammar."
Aziz wrote: > None of the above. I agree with that part of Aziz's comment. In my opinion, the formal grammar governs. After all, we call ourselves computer scientists. One thing we can all agree upon is that chapter 4 does not present a consistent description of the lexical syntax. Unless we are willing to accuse the editors of deliberate inconsistency, we must conclude there are mistakes in chapter 4. The question is whether those mistakes lie in the formal grammar, the prose, or both. Since Aziz has chosen to implement the prose rather than the formal grammar, and we have done the opposite, it is clear that portable R6RS code must confine itself to the intersection of the languages described by the formal grammar and by the prose of R6RS chapter 4. Since "portable R6RS code" is basically an oxymoron anyway, I agree with Aziz that this is no big deal for the R6RS. It becomes an issue for ERR5RS, however, because that standard doesn't have to copy the mistakes of the R6RS. This mailing list is not the place for that discussion. Will _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
