Sam TH quoting Andrew Reilly: > > What I don't understand is why having some nicely defined > > meaning for "finished" programs should preclude a useful > > semantics for "work-in-progress" programs (REPL). Can't we have > > both? Please? > > The trouble is that it's hard to give them consistent semantics.
No, it isn't hard. For example, IEEE Standard 1178-1990 defines a semantics that can be implemented consistently for both "finished" programs and REPLs. The R6RS semantics, as I have repeatedly pointed out and as Sam's example also demonstrates, is incompatible with REPLs. Sam's example points out that the R6RS semantics for macro expansion requires two separate passes over a top-level program or library. The R6RS did not have to require a two-pass algorithm, but that's what it did. Hence the problem. Will _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
