On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Denis Washington <[email protected]> wrote: > > I haven't found anything to complain about in chapter 3, so here are my > comments on the fourth chapter: [...]
Thank you very much for the extensive comments. We have indeed not paid much attention to improving the prose yet, focusing instead on features and semantics. If editorial changes are all that remain I think we're on good track for the final draft. I think we can accommodate most of your suggestions. A couple of replies: > I was a bit suprised to see that the results of "when" and "unless" are > left completely unspecified. I prefer this semantics from a type-theoretic perspective, because the type remains the same whether the test passes or fails. Also, `when' and `unless' are specifically used for side-effects, and this is consistent with other side-effecting operations. > Maybe the example can be modified to include a case which calls another > case of the same procedure? I would still prefer to remove "case-lambda" from the report altogether, specifically because I think this use case is bad style, encouraging code duplication. -- Alex _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
