15 minutes ago, Alex Shinn wrote:
>
> It was known behavior, left in place mostly because I didn't
> actually care :) Any Scheme that behaves like Chibi in this case can
> be fixed with: [...]  The actual fix in Chibi was just one line,
> [...]

The question is still open, AFAICT: is the pre-fix problem something
that is fine to have in an r5/7rs?  According to John, your bug fix
was not needed.

> you can now say Chibi's call/cc is 100% R5RS compliant.

Chibi being compliant or not is really something that never bothered
me...  Whether its (past) problem is a problem wrt the language
specification did.  (And even that was very mild.)

> I didn't do this before because I hate MV with a fiery passion.  I
> think it's a very natural and aesthetically pleasing extension to
> the language that happens to backfire, making the compiler, the
> runtime, and _all_ user code considerably more complex.  [...]

[That's fine, I never talked about the merits of having it as a
feature or not.  I know how it's natural and pleasing (cont.), how
it's useful, and how people usually hate it (second-class).  So I
don't have a strong opinion on *that* question...]

--
          ((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