>> That should be <binding spec> instead of <expression>. > > I don't think so. The parameters can be specified by expressions and not just > identifiers. > >> is missing a pair of parentheses "(<expression> <expression)*" > > I meant: is missing a pair of parentheses AROUND "(<expression> <expression)*" >
I do understand the missing parenthesis part, but parameterize's bindings looks just like a let's. Just having <expression> makes the definition ambiguous. As it is now, <expression> can be anything, including a 'list'. Eg: (parameterize ((1) 2 (+ #t '())) #f) is valid, but bogus. Making it <binding spec> should be enough to remove the ambiguity. Cheers leppie -- http://codeplex.com/IronScheme http://xacc.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
