[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: Alex Shinn
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [Scheme-reports] R7RS-small draft ratified by Steering Committee
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 15:14:33 +0900

On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 10:18 AM, John Cowan <address@hidden> wrote:
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.

There are actually many implementations for which this
is an error.  Notably R6RS requires it to be an error.

Schemes typically use the name `add1' for this.


reply via email to

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