An hour ago, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 25 minutes ago, Andy Wingo wrote:
> > I think the R5RS wording is careful and correct.
>
> This boils down to interpreting the english wording of the document,
> which I'm probably bad at.  What I understood from John is that
> chibi's current behavior (the one I demonstrated and the result that
> I got from it) is fine by R5RS.  If you take it (chibi's behavior)
> as a bug that is *not* fine by R5RS, then we have two native
> speakers with different interpretations, which I take as buggy
> wording.  If, OTOH, John agrees that the implementation is broken,
> [...]

Actually, I forgot what he said --

  Eli: Chibi's implementation is just plain broken:

  John: You know that is not true.  How dare you say such a thing?

So he clearly disagrees with chibi's problem being a bug, and
therefore the first thing I said above holds: there are two native
speakers who read the document thoroughly, one concluded that chibi's
problem is a bug, and one concluded that it's fine.  Assuming that
both are smart enough to not make any other mistakes, the only
conclusion is that the R5RS wording is not clear and needs to be
fixed.  Fixing it to disqualify chibi's implementation as a valid one
is IMO the right thing, but even if it goes otherwise, it should be
very clear that that example can throw an error.  Either way if I
really cared, or if I had any expectations, then I would have bothered
to file a ticket (or whatever they use) to make it clear that the
example is a conforming implementation or not.

(But my guess is that nothing will change.  Plonking is an awfully
convenient way out of problems.)

--
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

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