Alex Shinn scripsit: > The grammar for complex numbers without a real part is quite explicitly > making the sign mandatory, and this goes back to R4RS. I don't know > offhand what the rationale was - the only thing that comes to mind is > symmetry with the fact that i by itself requires a sign to distinguish > from the favored index variable.
I don't think there is a rationale. Somewhere between R3RS and R4RS, someone noticed that `+35i` was a reasonable alternative to `0+35i`, (which was the only syntax allowed by R2RS and R3RS), so it was added. Nobody proposed `35i`, so it didn't get in. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] Be yourself. Especially do not feign a working knowledge of RDF where no such knowledge exists. Neither be cynical about RELAX NG; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment in the world of markup, James Clark is as perennial as the grass. --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
