[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] #\@ starting an identifiers
Alex Shinn scripsit:
> Actually, this was ticket #12 in the second ballot, which
> sides with the prose in section 2.1:
> An identifier is any sequence of letters, digits, and "extended
> identifier characters" provided that it does not have a prefix
> which is a valid number.
> The formal syntax was updated partially to allow identifiers
> beginning with - or +, but <special initial> was not updated
> to include additional ASCII characters. I believe @ is the
> only character missing from that list.
Yes, it's the only one. Based on this, I've changed erratum 7
to say that @ was incorrectly omitted from <special initial>.
"Why yes, I'm ten percent Jewish on my manager's side." John Cowan
--Connie Francis http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Scheme-reports mailing list