[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Formal comment: The denotational semantics
- To: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] Formal comment: The denotational semantics
- From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2012 18:04:17 -0400
- Cc: will@x, scheme-reports@x
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <6370550.1931581341677285477.JavaMail.root@zimbra> <24176942.1931661341677412109.JavaMail.root@zimbra> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Perry E. Metzger scripsit:
> As a general process question: could WG1 vote in the "English" part
> of the spec and later amend it with a completed formal semantics
> (possibly with some minor patches to deal with ambiguities
> discovered in the course of creating them)? The formal semantics might
> take a while, but it would be a shame not to have them.
Yes, I agree; however, the completed formal semantics can be issued
as a separate document by a separate WG, with no need for amendment.
Patches we might need, though I hope not.
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