Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:24:36 -0700 From: Alex Shinn <[email protected]>
We do need to be careful here, and the WG has not yet had time to fully review the non-call/cc-based dynamic-binding research pointed out by Oleg. Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:28:35 -0700 From: Alex Shinn <[email protected]> The definition of eqv? is still under debate, but if the end result is incompatible with the formal semantics we will definitely update it. I am confused about the status of R7R draft 6. I had assumed that it was near completion and was only commenting on the text itself, not on which features were included or what their semantics should be. Indeed, Will Clinger just posted a message from the steering committee saying: We plan to call for a vote on the proposed specification sometime after the comment period has closed. In a few weeks, we'll send instructions on how to sign up for that advisory vote. On the other hand, WG1 hasn't made up its mind on how call/cc should work or how eqv? compares procedures. There isn't much point in trying to get the text right when the semantics are still up for grabs. The steering committee and WG1 need to get on the same page. -Richard Kelsey _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
