On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:04 AM, David Rush <[email protected]> wrote:
> Because there are still some broken semantics even in the > specification when it is that small. Parallelism isn't adequately > addressed. User data type extension mechanisms are so inconvenient as > to be impossible to use. Continuation semantics are not orthogonal > with procedure calls. Various numeric types are inadequately > specified. I/O is inapropriately factored. > > You've repeatedly said that continuation semantics are broken. I can't understand your complaint. Could you provide more explicit reasoning? In particular, what would it mean for continuation semantics to be orthogonal to procedure calls? Thanks, Lynn
_______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
