Re: overriding digit-names

[David Kastrup]

Jean Abou Samra <jean@abou-samra.fr> writes:

> Le jeudi 29 juin 2023 à 17:56 +0200, David Kastrup a écrit :
>
>> No, none of the "standards" say anything like that.  #(...) is a
>> self-quoting form, like #t and #f and numbers and strings and some other
>> things.  Quoting them doesn't change a thing.
>> 
>> And to be honest, I don't know of any _convention_ that would recommend
>> explicitly quoting them or other self-quoting forms, either.
>
>
>
> R5RS 6.3.6 page 31 < 
> https://conservatory.scheme.org/schemers/Documents/Standards/R5RS/r5rs.pdf >
>
>   Vectors are written using the notation #(obj ...). For
>   example, a vector of length 3 containing the number zero
>   in element 0, the list (2 2 2 2) in element 1, and the
>   string "Anna" in element 2 can be written as following:
>
>     #(0 (2 2 2 2) "Anna")
>
>   Note that this is the external representation of a vector, not
>   an expression evaluating to a vector. Like list constants,
>   vector constants must be quoted:
>
>     '#(0 (2 2 2 2) "Anna")
>        ⇒ #(0 (2 2 2 2) "Anna")

Ok, but at the same time R5RS states:

#(
     This introduces a vector constant (section *note Vectors::).
     Vector constants are terminated by ) .

and it does not make sense to _evaluate_ something that is supposed to
be the entry syntax for a constant.

So this does not even make sense.  I rescind the claim that no standard
calls for explicit quoting and replace it with a "what were they even
thinking here?" exclamation.

> Of course, Guile has always implemented the R7RS-small behavior as an
> extension to R5RS and R6RS.

Are there any Scheme interpreters/versions that didn't at any point of
time?  Just curious.

-- 
David Kastrup