Andy Wingo scripsit:

> Along those lines, an escaped embedded newline, like:
>
>    "asdadf \ asdfadf"
>
> in R6RS has the same meaning as "asdf asdfadf".  It allows you to
> nicely indent strings that you need to line-break for width.  I
> suggest that the production
>
>   \ NEWLINE WHITESPACE*
>
> within string literals be elided.

Ticket filed.

> Later the spec mentions that implementations may generalize string=?
> et al to take more than two arguments.  Does the spec need to actually
> mention this?  The R6RS, while a good document in many ways, had a
> very prohibitionist feel to it.  In contrast this draft is a bit more
> permissive, and to its credit, probably.  In that spirit there is no
> need to mention extensions, as they are always possible, unless they
> are particularly recommended, for which in this case there appears no
> cause.

Well, it turns out that Racket, Gambit, Guile, Chez, Ikarus, Larceny,
Ypsilon, Mosh, and Scheme 9 support it, whereas Gauche, MIT, Chicken,
Bigloo, Scheme48/scsh, Kawa, SISC, Chibi, STklos, and SSCM don't.  I've
filed a ticket to require support, under the rubric of consistency with
the numeric comparisons.

--
John Cowan    cowan@ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion
that optimum or inadequate performance in the trend of competitive
activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity,
but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be
taken into account. --Ecclesiastes 9:11, Orwell/Brown version

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