The 'conformity' of R5RS is pretty vague, I think. My understanding is that any upper-compatible lexical extentions (which R6RS explicitly prohibits) don't break conformance. Right?
--shiro From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] @ should be a valid identifier Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:01:56 -0400 > Neil Jerram scripsit: > > > And yet... R5RS systems, using SXML, have somehow managed to live with > > this ambiguity. Did R6RS need to choose what appears to be a > > relatively extreme method of resolving it? > > R5RS has exactly the same constraint, and to the extent that actual Scheme > systems allow @ initially in an identifier, they don't conform to R5RS. > > -- > John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ccil.org/~cowan > Female celebrity stalker, on a hot morning in Cairo: > "Imagine, Colonel Lawrence, ninety-two already!" > El Auruns's reply: "Many happy returns of the day!" > > _______________________________________________ > r6rs-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss > _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
