Am Di., 13. Sept. 2022 um 23:17 Uhr schrieb Bradley Lucier < [email protected]>:
> Thank you for your comments, I think I'll leave the current description > as it is. > There are still three issues with the current description: - It says that the sample implementation implements the procedures without a "!" in a "call/cc-safe" way. But that should be part of the specification, i.e. that every conforming implementation must implement the procedures without a "!" in a "call/cc-safe" way. - I find the current description more complicated than necessary (and too focused on call/cc, which is not the cause but just a means of detecting mutation), but that opinion is certainly subjective. More importantly, however, is that it is not clear how to prove that the definition of "call/cc-safety" in SRFI 231 forbids all mutations that we want to be forbidden, e.g. mutating a result returned earlier. - It would be good if the SRFI used the language of the standard Scheme semantics, i.e. that it talks about storing values in locations in the store and not about "modifying the state of data". Thanks, Marc
