Re: [Scheme-reports] R7RS final (draft #10?) - question for section 4.3.2 Pattern language and 7.1.5 Transformers

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

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   cowan@x
physically, logically, metaphysically impossible.    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Kangaroos are wonderful, but not *that* wonderful.     --Dan Dennett on zombies

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports