John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> ... > 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. By the way, does Scheme have the notion of a potnum (or did it in the past)? ---Vassil. -- Would you like your metaphors shaken or stirred? Vassil Nikolov | Васил Николов | <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
