Hi, Am 24.06.2011 um 09:13 schrieb B Smith-Mannschott:
> Ah. Undefined behavior by virtue of the fact that it goes umentioned > in the documentation. How tautological. Alternately one could consider > explicitly documenting undefined behavior. I think that's why we were > talking past eachother. You were expressing the former; I was > expecting the latter. I probably have a more conservative view. If it's not allowed, it's forbidden. Whether this is enforced or not. > So a hypothetical second implementation of the Clojure reader need not > duplicate the official Clojure reader's behavior on this point. One could imagine a more strict parser rejecting such cases. And this would break quite a few programs out there, I guess. Sincerely Meikel -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
