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

Should ":" be an extended alphabetic character?

This has come up before, but not in the context of the current
standardization cycle.

The ":" character is defined in 2.1 of R3RS to be one of the extended
alphabetic characters and thus a valid constituent of a Scheme
identifier.  This is a minor inconvenience to those of us who would
like to carry over the C*mm*n Lisp notation for package qualifiers
into Scheme implementations that are either based on C*mm*n Lisp or
otherwise coresident with C*mm*n Lisp.

What to do?

(1) Convince everyone that ":" should not be an extended alphabetic

(2) Allow users to declare which meaning of ":" is to be used (e.g.,
    on a file by file basis).

(3) Leave ":" alone and use a different notation for package qualifiers.

Is there any hope for #1?  Is #2 acceptable?  Any suggestions for #3?
Has anyone else faced this problem?

[Note: I am not advocating packages.  I hate them.  I'm merely
 concerned that I find a reasonable way to live with them when
 procedures in the two languages need to talk to each other.]