On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Denis Washington <denisw@online.de> wrote:
>
> I haven't found anything to complain about in chapter 3, so here are my
> comments on the fourth chapter:
[...]

Thank you very much for the extensive comments.  We have
indeed not paid much attention to improving the prose yet,
focusing instead on features and semantics.  If editorial
changes are all that remain I think we're on good track for
the final draft.

I think we can accommodate most of your suggestions.
A couple of replies:

> I was a bit suprised to see that the results of "when" and "unless" are
> left completely unspecified.

I prefer this semantics from a type-theoretic
perspective, because the type remains the
same whether the test passes or fails.  Also,
`when' and `unless' are specifically used for
side-effects, and this is consistent with other
side-effecting operations.

> Maybe the example can be modified to include a case which calls another
> case of the same procedure?

I would still prefer to remove "case-lambda" from the
report altogether, specifically because I think this use
case is bad style, encouraging code duplication.

--
Alex

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