-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/28/2012 10:55 PM, John Cowan wrote:
>
> If anyone has a proposal here, it might be a Good Thing, but I wouldn't
> know the difference between up and Tuesday when it comes to the formal
> semantics, so I must decline either to write it or to edit it.
>
> Editorial tickets #427 and #428 created.  Ballot ticket #429 for new
> formal semantics created.  If nobody steps up to do this and review it
> before the last ballot, it will be closed.
>

I think the formal semantics are a NEAT FEATURE, so they should be kept
current and valid and useful. I'm rather rusty now, but I've been quite
familiar with formal semantics in the past, so I can try and take a look
at this, but I'd want at least one other person to help so I have
somebody to discuss bits I get stuck on, and so we can cross-check each
other to make sure we're not doing anything silly, before it goes out
for review. Any takers?

ABS

- --
Alaric Snell-Pym
http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk/xaV0ACgkQRgz/WHNxCGqWmACfcWmyCGmOfNbwDyKOXMzBPGPQ
kkUAn29aBqw1VlfFUZEtCAC73L5IGTz+
=Enge
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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