Re: [scheme-reports-wg1] Re: [Scheme-reports] Omission in draft 3

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Alex Shinn scripsit:

> I've double checked, and can't think of any
> reason that <syntax keyword> should even be in the report.

I agree; it's a holdover from R4RS.

> I've removed it - any member can file a ticket
> to reintroduce it, but I'll want to hear a rationale.

I've made a followup change to remove <variable> from the
formal syntax in favor of <identifier>, since you have
removed the definition of <variable> (which in turn depends
on the definition of <syntactic keyword>).
Variables and syntactic keywords have been *syntactically* the
same since R5RS anyway.

-- 
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan  cowan@x
Arise, you prisoners of Windows / Arise, you slaves of Redmond, Wash,
The day and hour soon are coming / When all the IT folks say "Gosh!"
It isn't from a clever lawsuit / That Windowsland will finally fall,
But thousands writing open source code / Like mice who nibble through a wall.
        --The Linux-nationale by Greg Baker