John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> Perry E. Metzger scripsit:
>
> > As a general process question: could WG1 vote in the "English" part
> > of the spec and later amend it with a completed formal semantics
> > (possibly with some minor patches to deal with ambiguities
> > discovered in the course of creating them)? The formal semantics might
> > take a while, but it would be a shame not to have them.
>
> Yes, I agree; however, the completed formal semantics can be issued
> as a separate document by a separate WG, with no need for amendment.
> Patches we might need, though I hope not.

Indeed, my current view is that we should have a separate group dedicated
to working on the formal semantics of the language, and distribute as
best suits formal semantics, as a separate entity.

--
Aaron W. Hsu | arcfide@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us
Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.

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