* Aaron W. Hsu [2012-03-21 19:45] writes: > I can share my thoughts on this one... > > On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 07:49 +0100, Helmut Eller wrote: >> (let ((events '())) >> (guard (c >> (#t #f)) >> (guard (c >> ((dynamic-wind >> (lambda () (set! events (cons 'c events))) >> (lambda () #f) >> (lambda () (set! events (cons 'd events)))) >> #f)) >> (dynamic-wind >> (lambda () (set! events (cons 'a events))) >> (lambda () (raise 'error)) >> (lambda () (set! events (cons 'b events)))))) >> (reverse events)) > > Let's keep in mind the text of the standard, which should match that of > R6RS for this case, and therefore, we can test any Scheme implementation > claiming to conform to R6RS to see if we get what we expect. [...] > This gives '(a b c d a b) as the only valid result.
Thanks, for clearing this up. That was also my interpretation of R6RS. I'd like to note, that this example requires full continuations since a and b occur two times in the event trace Helmut _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
