You'd be surprised. I have read those 'formal comments'; I just don't
think they contain any reasons to downgrade the formal semantics into
an optional appendix. Not one. Not a single one.
On May 5, 2009, at 12:42 PM, William D Clinger wrote:
Matthias Felleisen wrote:
For whatever
Matthias Felleisen wrote:
You'd be surprised. I have read those 'formal comments'; I just don't
think they contain any reasons to downgrade the formal semantics into
an optional appendix. Not one. Not a single one.
Well, no one ever said the R6RS was perfect.
Will
Matthias Felleisen wrote:
For whatever reasons, the editors moved the only piece of mathematics
semantics (which doesn't include modules and macros) to the appendix,
for reasons that still escape me. Well, they don't really. If you
don't have a tool for arbitrating two distinct interpretations
