John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> ...
> Somewhere between R3RS and R4RS,
> someone noticed that `+35i` was a reasonable alternative to `0+35i`,
> (which was the only syntax allowed by R2RS and R3RS), so it was added.
> Nobody proposed `35i`, so it didn't get in.

  By the way, does Scheme have the
  notion of a potnum (or did it in the past)?

  ---Vassil.

--
Would you like your metaphors shaken or stirred?

Vassil Nikolov | Васил Николов | <vnikolov@pobox.com>

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports