Joseph Wayne Norton scripsit: > For R7RS final (draft #10?), the definition of the <pattern> grammar > in section 7.1.5 Transformers does not match with the explanation > given in section 4.3.2 Pattern language. Is this an intentional loose > definition of <pattern> or a bug with the definition of <pattern> ?
It's inherited from R5RS. It's definitely correct that the top-level pattern has to be a list pattern, not a vector pattern or an identifier pattern, because that couldn't match the source code. R6RS gives a more restricted syntactic definition of a top-level pattern, but we missed transcribing that into R7RS-small. I don't think it's a serious error: the prose often sets further limits on what 7.1 permits. -- Note that nobody these days would clamor for fundamental laws John Cowan of *the theory of kangaroos*, showing why pseudo-kangaroos are [email protected] physically, logically, metaphysically impossible. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Kangaroos are wonderful, but not *that* wonderful. --Dan Dennett on zombies _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
