[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Formal Comment: clarify the semantics of the dynamic features
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 06/28/2012 10:55 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> If anyone has a proposal here, it might be a Good Thing, but I wouldn't
> know the difference between up and Tuesday when it comes to the formal
> semantics, so I must decline either to write it or to edit it.
> Editorial tickets #427 and #428 created. Ballot ticket #429 for new
> formal semantics created. If nobody steps up to do this and review it
> before the last ballot, it will be closed.
I think the formal semantics are a NEAT FEATURE, so they should be kept
current and valid and useful. I'm rather rusty now, but I've been quite
familiar with formal semantics in the past, so I can try and take a look
at this, but I'd want at least one other person to help so I have
somebody to discuss bits I get stuck on, and so we can cross-check each
other to make sure we're not doing anything silly, before it goes out
for review. Any takers?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Scheme-reports mailing list