MIT Scheme Reference: Footnotes

[Top] | [Contents] | [Index] | [ ? ]

# Footnotes

### (1)

MIT Scheme implements the whole tower of numerical types. It has unlimited-precision exact integers and exact rationals. Flonums are used to implement all inexact reals; on machines that support IEEE floating-point arithmetic these are double-precision floating-point numbers.

### (2)

MIT Scheme implements all of the written notations for numbers.

### (3)

In MIT Scheme the `rational?` procedure is the same as `real?`, and the `complex?` procedure is the same as `number?`.

### (4)

MIT Scheme signals an error of type `condition-type:bad-range-argument` in this case.

### (5)

Some of the details in this section depend on the fact that the underlying operating system uses the ASCII character set. This may change when someone ports MIT Scheme to a non-ASCII operating system.

### (6)

Note that the Control bucky bit is different from the ASCII control key. This means that `#\SOH` (ASCII ctrl-A) is different from `#\C-A`. In fact, the Control bucky bit is completely orthogonal to the ASCII control key, making possible such characters as `#\C-SOH`.

### (7)

The above definitions imply that all lists have finite length and are terminated by the empty list.

### (8)

Note that path is restricted to a machine-dependent range, usually the size of a machine word. On many machines, this means that the maximum length of path will be 30 operations (32 bits, less the sign bit and the "end-of-sequence" bit).

### (9)

Although they are often used as predicates, `memq`, `memv`, and `member` do not have question marks in their names because they return useful values rather than just `#t` or `#f`.

### (10)

In older dialects of Lisp, uninterned symbols were fairly important. This was true because symbols were complicated data structures: in addition to having value cells (and sometimes, function cells), these structures contained property lists. Because of this, uninterned symbols were often used merely for their property lists -- sometimes an uninterned symbol used this way was referred to as a disembodied property list. In MIT Scheme, symbols do not have property lists, or any other components besides their names. There is a different data structure similar to disembodied property lists: one-dimensional tables (see section 11.2 1D Tables). For these reasons, uninterned symbols are not very useful in MIT Scheme. In fact, their primary purpose is to simplify the generation of unique variable names in programs that generate Scheme code.

### (11)

MIT Scheme reserves a specific set of interned symbols for its own use. If you use these reserved symbols it is possible that you could break specific pieces of software that depend on them. The reserved symbols all have names beginning with the characters ``#[`' and ending with the character ``]`'; thus none of these symbols can be read by the procedure `read` and hence are not likely to be used by accident. For example, `(intern "#[unnamed-procedure]")` produces a reserved symbol.

### (12)

In MIT Scheme, the returned list is always newly allocated.

### (13)

This introduction is taken from Common Lisp, The Language, second edition, p. 431.

### (14)

Although they are often used as predicates, `assq`, `assv`, and `assoc` do not have question marks in their names because they return useful values rather than just `#t` or `#f`.

### (15)

Because Scheme's escape procedures have unlimited extent, it is possible to escape from the current continuation but later to escape back in. If implementations were permitted to close the port on any escape from the current continuation, then it would be impossible to write portable code using both `call-with-current-continuation` and `call-with-input-file` or `call-with-output-file`.

### (16)

The value returned by a call to `peek-char` is the same as the value that would have been returned by a call to `read-char` on the same port. The only difference is that the very next call to `read-char` or `peek-char` on that input-port will return the value returned by the preceding call to `peek-char`. In particular, a call to `peek-char` on an interactive port will hang waiting for input whenever a call to `read-char` would have hung.

### (17)

`char-ready?` exists to make it possible for a program to accept characters from interactive ports without getting stuck waiting for input. Any input editors associated with such ports must make sure that characters whose existence has been asserted by `char-ready?` cannot be rubbed out. If `char-ready?` were to return `#f` at end of file, a port at end of file would be indistinguishable from an interactive port that has no ready characters.

### (18)

`write` is intended for producing machine-readable output and `display` is for producing human-readable output.

### (19)

This description of `format` is adapted from Common Lisp, The Language, second edition, section 22.3.3.

### (20)

Except that if the argument name is a string, its external representation is generated by `write-string`.

### (21)

This introduction is adapted from Common Lisp, The Language, second edition, section 23.1.

### (22)

This description is adapted from Common Lisp, The Language, second edition, section 23.1.1.

This document was generated by Chris Hanson on June, 17 2002 using texi2html