Re: [Scheme-reports] Formal Comment: clarify the semantics of the dynamic features

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Richard Kelsey scripsit:

> I am confused about the status of R7R draft 6.  I had assumed that it
> was near completion and was only commenting on the text itself, not
> on which features were included or what their semantics should be.

No, the whole of the draft is open to informal and formal comments.
If the WG has voted on something, and no new arguments are presented,
it's unlikely that we'll reconsider, but not impossible.

> On the other hand, WG1 hasn't made up its mind on how call/cc should
> work or how eqv? compares procedures.  
> to get the text right when the semantics are still up for grabs.

Form is content: the text of the draft is the only full expression of the
semantics that exists.  If I had my druthers, the formal semantics would
go away altogether, but then I'm prejudiced against formal semantics:
see http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4478#comment-69764 if you are
interested in my views.

> The steering committee and WG1 need to get on the same page.

I associate myself with Alex's comments on the rest of your message.

-- 
Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so,         John Cowan
is a tax on income.  --Lord Macnaghten (1901)           cowan@x

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