Stefan,

Also, that grammar doesn't support inf/nan.

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Stefan Edwards <saedwards.ecc@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is also the grammar as it is laid out in TSPL3:
>
> http://scheme.com/tspl3/grammar.html#./grammar:h0
>
> Which is similar to what Mr. Robbin's wrote above, save for hoisting the '+'
> & '-' rules into the complex production above.
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:00 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
>>
>> Andrew Robbins scripsit:
>>
>> > On a more serious note, is there any harm in rewriting
>> > the current syntax a little more clearly? For example:
>>
>> I like this proposal.  I have asked a friend of mine who knows how to
>> use proof engines to see if this grammar is equivalent to the existing
>> grammar.
>>
>> --
>> John Cowan      cowan@ccil.org         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>> Statistics don't help a great deal in making important decisions.
>> Most people have more than the average number of feet, but I'm not about
>> to start a company selling shoes in threes. --Ross Gardler
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scheme-reports mailing list
>> Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
>> http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
>
>
>
>
> --
> ====
> Q. How many Prolog programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?
> A. No.

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