Re: defining new character names?

[rm]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 10:12:10AM +0200, Lars J. Aas wrote:
> Keith Wright <address@hidden> wrote:
[...]
> : (B) The double quotes around "paren-close" in the definition
> :      are surely wrong.
> 
> Yes, I wrote "something like" because I don't know what would be
> possible for accomplishing this.  The most "transparent" solution
> would be to allow
> 
>   (define #\paren-close #\051)
> 
> [If the first token looks like a character constant, the second must
> be one too?]  Would that be possible to implement without any overhead
> on the define implementation?  Would it break something?

Hmm, that most likely won't work. The interpretation of the '#\...'
tokens is done by the reader, and that will complain about an
'Unknown # object:'. I think one would have to extend guiles read-option
interface and create a new set of primitives to manipulate the readers
#\-object table.

  (set-char-constant! 'paren-close #\051)

or, probably

    (set-char-constant! 'paren-close 051)

Ralf Mattes