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

*To*: RRRS-AUTHORS@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU*Subject*: small changes*From*: Jonathan A Rees <JAR@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>*Date*: Sun, 23 Mar 86 18:10:53 EST

As the current editor of the RRRS, I would like to make the following to last year's report. If you have serious objections let me know. Otherwise I'll go ahead. ----- Compatible changes: - Allow identifiers to begin with tilde (^) and underscore (_). These characters can't begin numbers, and are allowed elsewhere in identifiers, so this seems innocuous and reasonable. Was there some reason this wasn't permitted in the first place? - Allow the characters - and + in the middle of identifiers. I assume this was an oversight. - Define GCD and LCM to work on Gaussian integers. (Complex numbers are inessential anyhow, so you won't be obliged to implement this - but I'll tell you how if you care.) - Define new procedures NUMERATOR and DENOMINATOR on nonzero Gaussian rationals which return canonical numerator and denominator (denominator will always be a positive integer). - I don't know of anyone who is a NAMED-LAMBDA partisan, so I intend to flush it. (It's not essential, anyhow.) However, I know there are some people out there who are partial to REC, so I'll take the conservative position again and leave it in (even though I and other MIT folks don't like it). ----- Incompatible change: I'd like to change the meaning of (DEFINE (form var ...) body ...) so that it's defined in terms of LAMBDA instead of NAMED-LAMBDA. The only reason this existed in the first place, I think, was because that's the way MIT Scheme's DEFINE was defined. But on talking individually with many people at MIT and elsewhere, I find that no one likes this semantics and would rather have the simpler expansion in terms of LAMBDA. ----- I have made all of Will's suggested "non-controversial changes", and have also changed the description of DO as previously discussed, which appears to be non-controversial. I am preparing a complete almost-context-free grammar for an appendix which I'll electronically mail out for review. I'll try to US mail the whole report to everyone in about a week, then wait for feedback, make final changes, and ship it off to SIGPLAN. Jonathan

- Prev by Date:
**S&I's idea of EQ?** - Next by Date:
**Scheme BNF** - Prev by thread:
**Re: S&I's idea of EQ? (OOPS!)** - Next by thread:
**small changes** - Index(es):