You'd be surprised. I have read those 'formal comments'; I just don't
think they contain any reasons to downgrade the formal semantics into
an optional appendix. Not one. Not a single one.
On May 5, 2009, at 12:42 PM, William D Clinger wrote:
Matthias Felleisen wrote:
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? :-)
Although Matthias may not wish to know the actual reasons
for having an appendix that describes a formal semantics
for part of R6RS, those reasons were documented by formal
comments 222, 226, 227, and especially 236 [1,2,3,4].
Will
[1] http://www.r6rs.org/formal-comments/comment-222.txt
[2] http://www.r6rs.org/formal-comments/comment-226.txt
[3] http://www.r6rs.org/formal-comments/comment-227.txt
[4] http://www.r6rs.org/formal-comments/comment-236.txt
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
