Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!sot-ecs!sra From: sra@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Stephen Adams) Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re: Concerning standards. Message-ID: Date: 17 Jun 91 09:03:10 GMT References: <6209@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> Sender: news@ecs.soton.ac.uk Followup-To: comp.lang.scheme Organization: Southampton University Computer Science Lines: 29 In-reply-to: carlton@husc10.harvard.edu's message of 14 Jun 91 01:28:46 GMT In article carlton@husc10.harvard.edu (david carlton) writes: > In article <6209@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: > > Indeed, there is nothing in the Scheme standard that requires > a Scheme system to accept 1+ and -1+ as valid identifiers! > > One reason why I use add1 and sub1. 1+ and -1+ always looked odd to > me, anyways. I was disappointed to see the definition of scheme identifiers changed to disallow names like `1+'. I also note the Eulisp has made the same bad decision. I think it is a bad decision because it makes data stored as s-expressions in text files less versatile and no longer a valid `lowest common denominator' data format between different kinds of lisp. I also prefered to use my set of selection functions called `1st', `2nd', `3rd', `4th' etc. I think that these look much nicer on the screen and printed page than `first' and `second'. They are shorter, have an `obvious' meaning and line up nicely beneath on another in larger expressions. -- Stephen Adams S.R.Adams@ecs.soton.ac.uk Computer Science University of Southampton Southampton SO9 5NH, UK