[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Formal comment: The denotational semantics
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Michael Sperber
> 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:
> 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.
> (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.
Scheme-reports mailing list