On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 21:44 +0200, Alex Queiroz wrote: > Hallo, > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:19 PM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Andy Wingo scripsit: > > > >> There is a note about uninterned symbols here, and later in 6.3.3. > >> Assuming that the report specifies the behavior of report-defined > >> features, and to the extent that it does not mention them, explicitly > >> does not specify the behavior of any implementation extension, I suggest > >> that this reference be elided. Implementation extensions can do > >> whatever implementations want them to do. > > > > Ehhh. It's a note. No change. > > > > A pointless note, it seems. Andy is right, the report does not > have notes on every other possible implementation extension on Earth.
Does the current report say, explicitly, what it means for a symbol to be uninterned? 'Cause if it's going to talk about them at all, even as an extension provided by some implementations, I think it ought to provide a working definition of that term. Bear _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
