On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Michael Sperber <[email protected]> wrote: > > Formal Comment > > the submitter's name: Michael Sperber > The submitter's email address: [email protected] > the draft version of the report: draft 6 > a one-sentence summary of the issue: The denotational semantics is inadequate > a full description of the issue: > > The denotational semantics in the draft, which seems to be copied from > R5RS, is inadequate for helping to describe those parts of the semantics > where the semantics is especially tricky, especially evaluation order > and `dynamic-wind'. This is a pity, especially as there's an R5RS > version of the semantics in R6RS: > > http://www.cs.uchicago.edu/~jacobm/pubs/scheme-semantics.pdf > > Moreover, there is a version of the denotational semantics that does > include `dynamic-wind' in this paper: > > Martin Gasbichler, Eric Knauel, Michael Sperber Richard A. Kelsey: How > to Add Threads to a Sequential Language Without Getting Tangled Up, In > The 2003 Scheme Workshop, Boston, Ma., October 2003. > > http://www.deinprogramm.de/sperber/papers/adding-threads.pdf > > (I'd be happy to supply LaTeX if anybody is interested.)
Formal comment ticket #453 filed. We already have ticket #429 tracking this issue. Thanks! This does what I expected, globally threading the set of before/after thunks through every function. The WG is currently debating updating the denotational semantics or switching to an operational semantics. Assuming we don't switch I'll update the DN in a similar manner, and let you know if we need the source. -- Alex _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
