[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] 5.1 programs
- To: "Aaron W. Hsu" <arcfide@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] 5.1 programs
- From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 19:00:21 -0400
- Cc: scheme-reports@x
- In-reply-to: <op.vvsw3zib0p3ku8@localhost>
- References: <m3k4dm7jms.fsf@unquote.localdomain> <BANLkTi=rat+8dbtxgxsopUYtzeiw2Mr3QA@mail.gmail.com> <20110520220352.GL13998@mercury.ccil.org> <op.vvsw3zib0p3ku8@localhost>
Aaron W. Hsu scripsit:
> Unfortunately, this is not true. At least, this is not true in general.
> Considering the limited subset of Scheme that WG1 is dealing with, I would
> consider them the same, but as soon as thing like low-level macros come
> into play, there are distinct differences among major implementations.
Yes, I was speaking only of syntax-rules macros, where there are no
phasing issues.
--
The experiences of the past show John Cowan
that there has always been a discrepancy cowan@x
between plans and performance. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
--Emperor Hirohito, August 1945
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports