Re: [Scheme-reports] Formal comment: The denotational semantics

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Michael Sperber
<sperber@x> wrote:
>
> Formal Comment
>
> the submitter's name: Michael Sperber
> The submitter's email address: sperber@x
> 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
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports