[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] <transformer spec> BNF
- To: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] <transformer spec> BNF
- From: "Taylan Ulrich B." <taylanbayirli@x>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:12:32 +0200
- Cc: scheme-reports@x
- In-reply-to: <CAMMPzYOchA4SwCB=STSa9X2o6r8wOYZ4A=TLfqynttjOb61gjQ@mail.gmail.com> (Alex Shinn's message of "Thu, 13 Sep 2012 23:26:47 +0900")
- References: <email@example.com> <CAMMPzYOchA4SwCB=STSa9X2o6r8wOYZ4A=TLfqynttjOb61gjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x> writes:
> Hi Taylan,
> "It is an error if <syntax rule> is not of the form (<pattern> <template>).
> The <pattern> in a <syntax rule> is a list <pattern> whose first element
> is an identifier."
> Thus "it is an error," and implementations are free to do
> whatever they want, though most will either ignore it or
> signal an syntax error.
Thanks for the explanation.
> "List pattern" is simply a pattern which is a list, as
> described further on in the section. I don't think this
> is confusing, but we're open to alternate suggestions.
Perhaps "a <pattern> that is a list" in place of "a list <pattern>",
since the latter reads like "a list that we will call <pattern>." (I
had at least one native English speaker share this confusion.)
Also, in section 6.4 (Pairs and lists), it is stated that "an improper
list is not a list." However, the <pattern> in a <syntax rule> can be an
improper list as well, can it not? Then we would end up with "The
<pattern> in a <syntax rule> is a <pattern> that is a list or improper
list whose first element is an identifier," perhaps replacing the second
occurrence of <pattern> with a pronoun: "The <pattern> in a <syntax
rule> is one that is a list or improper list whose first element is an
identifier." A bit long-winded but more accurate if I'm not mistaken.
I hope I'm not being too pedantic. :)
Scheme-reports mailing list