Speaking of RNRSs unspecified behaviours I always wished to modify: (set! foo bar) and (sequence-set! foo index val)
to return the value of the variable being set. Come on, I know you folks wish it too... :P On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Abdulaziz Ghuloum <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 5, 2009, at 5:44 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > >> In PL, such questions should be decided via mathematical models that >> do not depend on machines and compilers. That's the only way to truly >> disambiguate the English in a spec. >> >> For whatever reasons, the editors moved the only piece of mathematics >> semantics (which doesn't include modules and macros) to the appendix, >> for reasons that still escape me. Well, they don't really. If you >> don't have a tool for arbitrating two distinct interpretations of >> an informal document, you can always claim that both are correct and >> if you so desire, you can claim one of them is, eh, smart? :-) > > Such tool helps indeed, but it's not the only way to arbitrate > the different interpretations of the document. As a matter of > fact, the document in question explicitly states that both of > these interpretations (and many others) are allowed and are > correct with regard to satisfying the report's requirements. > The issue here is that the library in question has nonportable > semantics (as should be clear from reading the document) but > this is the same as depending on any other unspecified behavior > (such as one implementation's evaluation order: left-to-right, > right-to-left, ...). You're not arguing that there must be > only one valid and true interpretation of the report, right? > > Aziz,,, > > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme >
