-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06/28/2012 10:55 PM, John Cowan wrote: > > If anyone has a proposal here, it might be a Good Thing, but I wouldn't > know the difference between up and Tuesday when it comes to the formal > semantics, so I must decline either to write it or to edit it. > > Editorial tickets #427 and #428 created. Ballot ticket #429 for new > formal semantics created. If nobody steps up to do this and review it > before the last ballot, it will be closed. >
I think the formal semantics are a NEAT FEATURE, so they should be kept current and valid and useful. I'm rather rusty now, but I've been quite familiar with formal semantics in the past, so I can try and take a look at this, but I'd want at least one other person to help so I have somebody to discuss bits I get stuck on, and so we can cross-check each other to make sure we're not doing anything silly, before it goes out for review. Any takers? ABS - -- Alaric Snell-Pym http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk/xaV0ACgkQRgz/WHNxCGqWmACfcWmyCGmOfNbwDyKOXMzBPGPQ kkUAn29aBqw1VlfFUZEtCAC73L5IGTz+ =Enge -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
