I believe the spirit of the R6RS is to allow @ to be an identifier. To use SXML/SSAX, we *really* need @ to be a valid identifier.
Following my comments below, I cannot see a reason why @ should not have been allowed to be an identifier. Is there a good reason @ should not be a valid identifier? R6RS 4.2.4: In general, a sequence of letters, digits, and "extended alphabetic characters" is an identifier when it begins with a character that cannot begin a representation of a number object. Extended alphabetic characters may be used within identifiers as if they were letters. The following are extended alphabetic characters: ! $ % & * + - . / : < = > ? @ ^ _ ~ 4.2.1: <special initial> -> ! | $ | % | & | * | / | : | < | = | > | ? | ^ | _ | ~ <special subsequent> -> + | - | . | @ <peculiar identifier> -> + | - | ... | -> <subsequent>* I believe not including @ in <special initial> (which would mean it doesn't need to be in <special subsequent>), or at least in <peculiar identifier>, was a mistake because @ "cannot begin a representation of a number object", opposed to . which can. As you can see in 4.2.1, the only place @ is used in numbers is: <complex R> -> <real R> @ <real R> and a <real R> cannot be <empty>. -- : Derick ---------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
