[Larceny-users] [plt-scheme] Re: side effects in R6RS modules

[Matthias Felleisen]

You'd be surprised. I have read those 'formal comments'; I just don't  
think they contain any reasons to downgrade the formal semantics into  
an optional appendix. Not one. Not a single one.



On May 5, 2009, at 12:42 PM, William D Clinger wrote:

> Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>> For whatever reasons, the editors moved the only piece of mathematics
>> semantics (which doesn't include modules and macros) to the appendix,
>> for reasons that still escape me. Well, they don't really. If you
>> don't have a tool for arbitrating two distinct interpretations of
>> an informal document, you can always claim that both are correct and
>> if you so desire, you can claim one of them is, eh, smart? :-)
>
> Although Matthias may not wish to know the actual reasons
> for having an appendix that describes a formal semantics
> for part of R6RS, those reasons were documented by formal
> comments 222, 226, 227, and especially 236 [1,2,3,4].
>
> Will
>
> [1] http://www.r6rs.org/formal-comments/comment-222.txt
> [2] http://www.r6rs.org/formal-comments/comment-226.txt
> [3] http://www.r6rs.org/formal-comments/comment-227.txt
> [4] http://www.r6rs.org/formal-comments/comment-236.txt
> _________________________________________________
>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme