[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] 6.3.5 strings
7 hours ago, John Cowan wrote:
> Andy Wingo scripsit:
> > Along those lines, an escaped embedded newline, like:
> > "asdadf \ asdfadf"
> > in R6RS has the same meaning as "asdf asdfadf". It allows you to
> > nicely indent strings that you need to line-break for width. I
> > suggest that the production
> > \ NEWLINE WHITESPACE*
> > within string literals be elided.
> Ticket filed.
> > Later the spec mentions that implementations may generalize string=?
> > et al to take more than two arguments. Does the spec need to actually
> > mention this? The R6RS, while a good document in many ways, had a
> > very prohibitionist feel to it. In contrast this draft is a bit more
> > permissive, and to its credit, probably. In that spirit there is no
> > need to mention extensions, as they are always possible, unless they
> > are particularly recommended, for which in this case there appears no
> > cause.
> Well, it turns out that Racket, Gambit, Guile, Chez, Ikarus,
> Larceny, Ypsilon, Mosh, and Scheme 9 support it, whereas Gauche,
> MIT, Chicken, Bigloo, Scheme48/scsh, Kawa, SISC, Chibi, STklos, and
> SSCM don't. I've filed a ticket to require support, under the
> rubric of consistency with the numeric comparisons.
Racket does not.
(Yes, I know why you think it does, it's a meta point about the
bogosity of counting implementations, which is done too often IMO.)
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
Scheme-reports mailing list