Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin scripsit:

> 3. is silently treating "." as a period symbol ever done in schemes/lisp?
> *If* we don't support this notation for improper, I'd expect it to be an
> error, not a "." symbol.  Or perhaps, specify that implementations SHOULD
> do whatever they do for a . at top level?

My machinery for testing different Schemes isn't working right now, but
I would be astonished if any Lisp treated "." as an ordinary identifier,
ever.  I have a vague memory that there are some Lisps in which things
like (. foo bar) are reader syntax for something or other, but I can't
pin it down.

-- 
John Cowan  co...@ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I am surrounded by dwarves.
        --Murray Gell-Mann

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current
with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft
MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
Readable-discuss mailing list
Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss

Reply via email to