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

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Michael Sperber scripsit:

> PS: This is a general issue with the draft - the R6RS document contains
> many improvements of the description of the language that are not about
> changes in the language.  (To name two other prominent examples: the
> distinction and relationship between numbers and the objects that
> represent them, 

I don't disagree in general, though it is very hard to locate these
improvements to incorporate them into R7RS-small.  But though I admit
that reasonable people can reasonably disagree, I find the pervasive
use of "number object" in R6RS verbose, pedantic, and wearying in the
extreme during multiple re-readings: I think it adds nothing.  I also
note that the analogous phrases "vector object", "procedure object",
and "pair object" are not used in R6RS, although vectors, procedures,
and (ordered) pairs are just as much mathematical objects as numbers are.

> Especially embarrassing is the pointer to the Indiana Scheme
> repository, which has not been maintained for something like 14 years.) 

That objection is well-taken: I just removed it from the trunk yesterday.

> Many parts of R7RS are throwbacks to the old, inferior wording.

The more specifics of this type you or anyone aelse can point out,
the better the R7RS will be.

-- 
The Unicode Standard does not encode            John Cowan
idiosyncratic, personal, novel, or private      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
use characters, nor does it encode logos
or graphics.                                    cowan@x

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