Am Fr., 30. Sept. 2022 um 21:15 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <[email protected]>:

> The following unnumbered points are editorial.
>
> Spelling errors (I don't know if Arthur does a spellcheck or not):
> compatiblity -> compatibility
> <formals>s -> <formals>
> <body>s -> <bodies>
> interthread -> inter-thread
> multithreaded -> multi-threaded
> Need whitespace after `make-parameter` in the first sentence of its definition
> parametrization -> parameterization
> reparameterized -> re-parameterized
> sublibraries -> sub-libraries

What is the rationale for the "sublibraries" hyphenation? For example,
one write "subset" and "subspace"?

In any case, I corrected it by talking about "component library" instead.

>
> In addition, I suggest "singularized -> are in the singular" and "is a 
> special form" -> "is syntax".  "Instate" is a known English verb, but it is 
> rare: "install" is clearer.
>
> "the call-with-non-composable-continuation defined here is a conservative 
> extension of the call-with-non-composable-continuation of earlier Scheme 
> reports": I think the second instance should be 
> "call-with-current-continuation".
>
> Is there any reason to use "parameterization" (as a concrete noun) rather 
> than "dynamic environment"?  If the two are being used in distinct senses, I 
> don't see it.  (This change would affect the names of certain procedures.)
>
> The claim that the SRFI's definition of make-promise breaks R7RS 
> compatibility should be removed, because adding new arguments to a procedure 
> is backward compatible in all RnRS except R6RS.
>
> Add a note to 5.12.4 that "condition variable" is a misleading term, as it is 
> not a variable but an object.
>
> It's rather hard to figure out what library or libraries a given identifier 
> is contained in.  Having found the relevant identifier, one has to search 
> back arbitrarily far in the document to find the relevant library.  I 
> recommend a single mapping table somewhere in the SRFI, either in the style 
> of the R7RS appendix or an inversion of it.
>
>
>

Reply via email to