[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
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.]