Felix Klock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Why have a formal grammar that is then modified by informal text?
I intended the formal grammar to reflect the wording, but evidently didn't succeed entirely. I don't presume to have the definitive answer to these questions at this point--I'm sure we'll need to address them in an erratum item. I will point out that this question arose with the editors in 2006: http://www.r6rs.org/r6rs-editors/2006-August/001827.html You might want to follow it through the September discussion of posts headed "a typo and some lexical issues" (note that Will Clinger's posts are usually not properly threaded---you'll probably need to search for the subject line): http://www.r6rs.org/r6rs-editors/2006-September/subject.html Specifically, this post might be of interest: http://www.r6rs.org/r6rs-editors/2006-September/001838.html -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
