Alex - Thanks for your comment. Let me clarify.
'(1 . 2) is OK '(1 . 2) is OK '(1 . #; 2 3) is OK '(1 . #; 2 #; 3 4) is OK '(1 . #; 2) is NG '(1 . #; 2 #; 3) is NG The above NG cases are invalid - I agree. However in section 7.1.7, the sentence "⟨Intertoken space⟩ may occur on either side of any token, but not within a token." was misleading to me. I guess this was my confusion. Thanks for your clarification. regards, Joe N On Jan 14, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Alex Shinn <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Joe, > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Joseph Wayne Norton > <[email protected]> wrote: > > The definition for <comment> has an issue when it follows a dot ("."). > > The definition includes 3 cases - simple comment, nested comment, and datum > comment. > > comment = ";" *non-line-ending line-ending > / nested-comment > / "#;" datum > > The datum comment when following a dot "eats" the next datum and thus is > improper. > > I'd suggest to document this point or to correct the BNF definition with > special handling for dot. > > This is intentional, and is consistent with R6RS > (and with most implementations). > > #; must be followed by a datum. #; followed by > a dot is a syntax error. > > -- > Alex >
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
