Comment Comment by GregBuchholz Looks like fweimer is correct for scheme. I admit to being very surprised. Here is the verbiage from various rXrs:r3rs, r4rs & r5rs (section 4.2.6):https://standards.scheme.org/official/r3rs.pdfhttps://standards.scheme.org/official/r4rs.pdfhttps://conservatory.scheme.org/schemers/Documents/Standards..."If a comma appears followed immediately by an at- sign (@), then the following expression must evaluate to a list;"r6rs (section 11.17):https://standards.scheme.org/official/r6rs.pdf"If an (unquote-splicing 〈expression〉 . . . ) form appears inside a〈qq template〉, then the〈expression〉s must evaluate to lists;"r7rs (4.2.8):https://standards.scheme.org/official/r7rs.pdf"If a comma appears followed without intervening whitespace by a commercial at-sign (@), then it is an error if the following expression does not evaluate to a list;" parent GregBuchholz 2 months ago
r3rs, r4rs & r5rs (section 4.2.6):
https://standards.scheme.org/official/r3rs.pdf
https://standards.scheme.org/official/r4rs.pdf
https://conservatory.scheme.org/schemers/Documents/Standards...
"If a comma appears followed immediately by an at- sign (@), then the following expression must evaluate to a list;"
r6rs (section 11.17):
https://standards.scheme.org/official/r6rs.pdf
"If an (unquote-splicing 〈expression〉 . . . ) form appears inside a〈qq template〉, then the〈expression〉s must evaluate to lists;"
r7rs (4.2.8):
https://standards.scheme.org/official/r7rs.pdf
"If a comma appears followed without intervening whitespace by a commercial at-sign (@), then it is an error if the following expression does not evaluate to a list;"