Andrew Pochinsky scripsit: > If one takes a position that RnRS alone defines the language, then it > could only mean what it says, not the other way around.
In that case, see Section 7.2, Formal semantics: # The order of evaluation within a call is unspecified. We mimic that # here by applying arbitrary permutations permute and unpermute, which # must be inverses, to the arguments in a call before and after they are # evaluated. This is not quite right since it suggests, incorrectly, # that the order of evaluation is constant throughout a program (for # any given number of arguments), but it is a closer approximation to # the intended semantics than a left-to-right evaluation would be. So if it's incorrect to say that the order of evaluation is constant, it is correct to say it is inconstant. > It seems a rather unfortunate state that there are several places in > RnRS that require a language lawyer well steeped in the history of > functional programming to parse. All standards are like this (as indeed are actual legal documents): they must always be interpreted with regard to a community of practice. -- It was impossible to inveigle John Cowan <[email protected]> Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Into offering the slightest apology For his Phenomenology. --W. H. Auden, from "People" (1953) _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
