Ah, I overlooked ",@ foo" case. I think Gauche does it wrong. An implementation can pase ",@foo" and ",@ foo" as (unquote-splicing foo), and still allow an extended syntax of symbols beginning with '@'. (To say (unquote @foo), one can write ", @foo", or if an implementation also supports CL-like vertical-bar escape, ,|@foo|).
But, I agree that it's not clean. This is already diverged from r6rs-discuss, so I'd stop. --shiro From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] @ should be a valid identifier Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:25:33 -0400 > Shiro Kawai scripsit: > > > 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? > > True. But this isn't upward compatible: ,@foo and ,@ foo are both instances > of splicing unquote, not of unquoted @foo and unquoted @. > > -- > So they play that [tune] on John Cowan > their fascist banjos, eh? [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --Great-Souled Sam http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
