[plt-scheme] . nitpick .

Does that do something like saying that only the r5rs functions will
exist in the current name space?

On 6/10/07, Jos Koot <jos.koot at telefonica.net> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Grant Rettke" <grettke at acm.org>
> To: "Jos Koot" <jos.koot at telefonica.net>
> Cc: "Anton van Straaten" <anton at appsolutions.com>; "PLT Scheme"
> <plt-scheme at list.cs.brown.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [plt-scheme] . nitpick .
>
>
> >I wonder why there isn't a r5rs module.
>
> But there is: (lib "r5rs" "lang")
> Jos Koot
>
>
> >
> > On 6/10/07, Jos Koot <jos.koot at telefonica.net> wrote:
> >> One could set (read-accept-dot #f) as default for language R5RS.
> >> Adding (read-accept-dot #f) to .../collects/r5rs/lang.ss does the trick,
> >> although another location may be more appropriate.
> >> Jos koot
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Anton van Straaten" <anton at appsolutions.com>
> >> To: "PLT Scheme" <plt-scheme at list.cs.brown.edu>
> >> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:15 PM
> >> Subject: [plt-scheme] . nitpick .
> >>
> >>
> >> > Shouldn't the R5RS language level disallow the infix dot syntax?
> >> >
> >> > As seen in this message:
> >> >
> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.scheme/msg/40f19cb9863cf28d
> >> >
> >> > ...someone experimenting can get confused by the infix feature.  It would
> >> > be
> >> > helpful to be able to respond to that by saying "that's an extension -- use
> >> > the R5RS language level if you want to experiment with standard Scheme
> >> > behavior".  But here, we can't say that.
> >> >
> >> > Anton
> >> >
> >> > _________________________________________________
> >> >  For list-related administrative tasks:
> >> >  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
> >> >
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________
> >>   For list-related administrative tasks:
> >>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
> >>
> >
>
>