On Wed 25 May 2011 08:41, Eli Barzilay <eli@barzilay.org> writes:

> optimization details that are irrelevant as far as justifying a
> language semantics

Surely they are somewhat relevant, or at least have been in the past.
Recall the opposition to an N**2 expansion algorithm...

> (You can see that also in the fact that (IIRC) the paper properly
> checks for the right number of values, a requirement that John is
> eager to ignore as long as r5rs is not explicity requiring.)

It's not just John, it's at least me and Peter as well ;-)

(Seriously though Eli: you are usually right, but you don't always make
your point well.  If your goal is to influence the standard, then
antagonizing the editors probably isn't the right strategy.)

Regards,

Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/

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