Re: [Scheme-reports] Procedural equivalence: the last debate

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

William D Clinger scripsit:

> With regard to the R5RS semantics, John has explained his reasoning.
> -From- John's explanation, I know he jumped to a false conclusion
> via an invalid generalization based on his incorrect guess about the
> purpose of two examples.  I will post on this at length when I have
> time this evening (and access to my archives).

I look forward to this with bait on my breath.

-- 
If I read "upcoming" in [the newspaper]              John Cowan
once more, I will be downcoming                      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and somebody will be outgoing.                       cowan@x

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