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
