l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> I would be inclined to not change the reader's default behavior, i.e.,
> to remain at least as permissive as in 1.8, so as to not cause
> gratuitous incompatibility (we could even add unit tests to make sure we
> don't remove them inadvertently.)
>
> Howeve
Hi!
Mike Gran writes:
> I was poking around the reader while working on the Unicode stuff, and I
> found that there aren't checks for a lot of symbol names that R6RS
> considers to be invalid.
It's actually more permissive than R5RS as well. For instance, `1+' and
`1-' are not valid R5RS ident
Hi,
I was poking around the reader while working on the Unicode stuff, and I
found that there aren't checks for a lot of symbol names that R6RS
considers to be invalid.
The following line has 11 dodgy but not invalid variable names:
+ - ... 00A @ [ \ ] { | }
They can be strung togeth
