Re: [Scheme-reports] issue with R7RS draft 8 section 7.1.7 <comment>

[Joseph Wayne Norton <norton@x>]

Alex -

Thanks for your comment.  Let me clarify. 

'(1 . 2)  is OK

'(1 . 2) is OK

'(1 . #; 2 3) is OK

'(1 . #; 2 #; 3 4) is OK

'(1 . #; 2) is NG

'(1 . #; 2 #; 3) is NG

The above NG cases are invalid - I agree. 

However in section 7.1.7, the sentence "⟨Intertoken space⟩ may occur on either side of any token, but not within a token." was misleading to me.  I guess this was my confusion.

Thanks for your clarification.

regards,

Joe N

On Jan 14, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x> wrote:

Hi Joe,

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Joseph Wayne Norton <norton@x> wrote:

The definition for <comment> has an issue when it follows a dot (".").

The definition includes 3 cases - simple comment, nested comment, and datum comment.

comment         = ";" *non-line-ending line-ending
                          / nested-comment
                          / "#;" datum

The datum comment when following a dot "eats" the next datum and thus is improper.

I'd suggest to document this point or to correct the BNF definition with special handling for dot.

This is intentional, and is consistent with R6RS

(and with most implementations).

#; must be followed by a datum.  #; followed by

a dot is a syntax error.

-- 

Alex

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