On 7 August 2011 11:55, Arthur A. Gleckler <[email protected]> wrote:
> Okay, I've pushed the change to trunk. >> > > Looks nice. The only drawback I see is that the new arrangement makes the > definitions of those eight data types peers of the definitions of the > control features, exceptions, eval, and I/O. Maybe it would be better to > break them out of the Standard Procedures section and into a separate Data > Structures section. What does everyone think? > I wondered about that, too, when I was thinking about John's proposed change. I'm cognisant of not being one of the people who has to do the work and the current text isn't particularly unclear, so consider this a mild preference: I think it's a little more logical to have the data types described in their own section and then discuss the standard procedures. In §3.2 we are already being specific about certain types existing when saying they must be disjoint, but we don't actually meet many of those types until the introductions to subsections in §6, almost in passing. Regards, Malcolm
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
