Re: [Scheme-reports] 6.1 equivalence predicates

[Ray Dillinger <bear@x>]

On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 21:44 +0200, Alex Queiroz wrote:
> Hallo,
> 
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:19 PM, John Cowan <cowan@x> wrote:
> > Andy Wingo scripsit:
> >
> >> There is a note about uninterned symbols here, and later in 6.3.3.
> >> Assuming that the report specifies the behavior of report-defined
> >> features, and to the extent that it does not mention them, explicitly
> >> does not specify the behavior of any implementation extension, I suggest
> >> that this reference be elided.  Implementation extensions can do
> >> whatever implementations want them to do.
> >
> > Ehhh.  It's a note.  No change.
> >
> 
>      A pointless note, it seems. Andy is right, the report does not
> have notes on every other possible implementation extension on Earth.

Does the current report say, explicitly, what it means for a symbol 
to be uninterned?  'Cause if it's going to talk about them at all, 
even as an extension provided by some implementations, I think it 
ought to provide a working definition of that term. 

Bear



_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports