Alex Shinn <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Taylan, > > "It is an error if <syntax rule> is not of the form (<pattern> <template>). > The <pattern> in a <syntax rule> is a list <pattern> whose first element > is an identifier." > > Thus "it is an error," and implementations are free to do > whatever they want, though most will either ignore it or > signal an syntax error.
Thanks for the explanation. > "List pattern" is simply a pattern which is a list, as > described further on in the section. I don't think this > is confusing, but we're open to alternate suggestions. Perhaps "a <pattern> that is a list" in place of "a list <pattern>", since the latter reads like "a list that we will call <pattern>." (I had at least one native English speaker share this confusion.) Also, in section 6.4 (Pairs and lists), it is stated that "an improper list is not a list." However, the <pattern> in a <syntax rule> can be an improper list as well, can it not? Then we would end up with "The <pattern> in a <syntax rule> is a <pattern> that is a list or improper list whose first element is an identifier," perhaps replacing the second occurrence of <pattern> with a pronoun: "The <pattern> in a <syntax rule> is one that is a list or improper list whose first element is an identifier." A bit long-winded but more accurate if I'm not mistaken. I hope I'm not being too pedantic. :) Regards, Taylan _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
