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 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 of >> an informal document, you can always claim that both are correct and >> if you so desire, you can claim one of them is, eh, smart? :-) > > Although Matthias may not wish to know the actual reasons > for having an appendix that describes a formal semantics > for part of R6RS, those reasons were documented by formal > comments 222, 226, 227, and especially 236 [1,2,3,4]. > > Will > > [1] http://www.r6rs.org/formal-comments/comment-222.txt > [2] http://www.r6rs.org/formal-comments/comment-226.txt > [3] http://www.r6rs.org/formal-comments/comment-227.txt > [4] http://www.r6rs.org/formal-comments/comment-236.txt > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme _______________________________________________ Larceny-users mailing list Larceny-users@lists.ccs.neu.edu https://lists.ccs.neu.edu/bin/listinfo/larceny-users
