On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, R. Kent Dybvig wrote: > I believe that including "for" along with the others as you suggested > above disambiguates these cases. ... > I don't believe what we're converging upon is difficult to implement. It > is posible we haven't sealed off all ambiguities, but if they are of the > nature of the ones that have already come to light, I doubt they'll cause > trouble in practice.
Okay - given your modified description, at this point no more ambiguities occur to me. > The current version syntax may not be convenient for all versioning > practices, but that is probably true of any version syntax. Let me also point out a small error in (and <version reference1> <version reference2> ...) (or <version reference1> <version reference2> ...) (not <version reference>) An empty <version reference> is equivalent to (). The last line implies that (not) = (not ()) and perhaps also that (or) = (or ()) (or (1)) = (or () (1)) etc., none of which are right. Andre _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
