Re: SV: SV: 2D or not 2E
JP Massar <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.corman |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
At 09:27 AM 3/9/03 +0100, Pavel Grozman wrote: >It is a common practice to treat potential numbers as symbols. >Some Lisp modules rely on such behavior (e.g., infix). In fact it occurred to me that I have code that depends on such behavior. I have code dealing with a deck of cards, and I use, e,g, the symbol 5d to represent the five of diamonds, etc. Never occurred to me that it might not be kosher; I do recall wondering whether '5d was in fact a symbol, but of course I just tried it out (using Allegro at the time) and it worked, and never gave it a second thought until now. >But HyperSpec says (2.3.4): "Any token that is a potential number >but does not fit the number syntax is a reserved token and has an >implementation-dependent interpretation". Indeed. People like Ken should be chastised severely for using such semi-portable symbols. I on the other hand had a completely legitimate use for such things.. -:) -:) ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption! http://us.click.yahoo.com/xaxhjB/hdqFAA/xGHJAA/SyjtlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/