I just got R6RS printed and bound. As I was paging through
it, I noticed something I had noticed before.
> From: Michael Sperber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Should not (page 13)
> >
> >-> ...
> > | \
> >->
> > |
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Am I right in thinking that the intention of the change
> described there is that
>
> (string=? "This is\
> \ a string" "This is \
> a string" "This is a string")
>
> must be true? (The response to comment #9 [1] confuses me.)
Yes.
> Shoul
> ... and probably fell between the cracks.
I hate to say the same thing twice, but the lack
of any reply at all makes me worry that this simple
bug fix has been lost in the infinitely more interesting
philosophical discussion that followed Dr. Clingers's
Essay.
For reasons I understand not at al
> ... and probably fell between the cracks.
I hate to say the same thing twice, but the lack
of any reply at all makes me worry that this simple
bug fix has been lost in the infinitely more interesting
philosophical discussion that followed Dr. Clingers's
Essay.
>From R5.97RS (page 13)
-> ...
I have long been annoyed that Scheme does not allow
a program to be indented without changing its meaning,
and was working on a comment to fix that, when I noticed
that (I think) it has already been done in formal comment #9.
Am I right in thinking that the intention of the change
described there
