[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [Scheme-reports] R7RS-small draft ratified by Stee

From: John Cowan
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [Scheme-reports] R7RS-small draft ratified by Steering Committee
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 21:18:43 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

Sanel Zukan scripsit:

> Is this means that we are no longer allowed to write and support
> someting like:
> (define (1+x x) (+ 1 x))
> ?

If you are an implementer, you certainly can provide such a procedure.

If you are a user, and you care about standards conformance,
you should choose a different identifier, as 1+x has never been a
standards-conformant identifier under *any* version of the Scheme
standard.  However, most Scheme implementations will accept 1+x as a
valid identifier.

John Cowan        address@hidden
In computer science, we stand on each other's feet.  --Brian K. Reid

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]