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 _______________________________________________ Larceny-users mailing list Larceny-users@lists.ccs.neu.edu https://lists.ccs.neu.edu/bin/listinfo/larceny-users
