This site is a static rendering of the Trac instance that was used by R7RS-WG1 for its work on R7RS-small (PDF), which was ratified in 2013. For more information, see Home.
Source for ticket #453
cc
sperber@deinprogramm.de
changetime
2012-10-12 06:22:10
component
WG1 - Core
description
Formal Comment
the submitter's name: Michael Sperber
The submitter's email address: sperber at deinprogramm.de
the draft version of the report: draft 6
a one-sentence summary of the issue: The denotational semantics is inadequate
a full description of the issue:
The denotational semantics in the draft, which seems to be copied from
R5RS, is inadequate for helping to describe those parts of the semantics
where the semantics is especially tricky, especially evaluation order
and `dynamic-wind'. This is a pity, especially as there's an R5RS
version of the semantics in R6RS:
http://www.cs.uchicago.edu/~jacobm/pubs/scheme-semantics.pdf
Moreover, there is a version of the denotational semantics that does
include `dynamic-wind' in this paper:
Martin Gasbichler, Eric Knauel, Michael Sperber Richard A. Kelsey: How
to Add Threads to a Sequential Language Without Getting Tangled Up, In
The 2003 Scheme Workshop, Boston, Ma., October 2003.
http://www.deinprogramm.de/sperber/papers/adding-threads.pdf
(I'd be happy to supply LaTeX if anybody is interested.)
PS: This is a general issue with the draft - the R6RS document contains
many improvements of the description of the language that are not about
changes in the language. (To name two other prominent examples: the
distinction and relationship between numbers and the objects that
represent them, and the description of the syntax with respect to
macros. Especially embarrassing is the pointer to the Indiana Scheme
repository, which has not been maintained for something like 14 years.)
Many parts of R7RS are throwbacks to the old, inferior wording.
id
453
keywords
milestone
owner
alexshinn
priority
major
reporter
alexshinn
resolution
fixed
severity
status
closed
summary
Formal Comment: The denotational semantics
time
2012-07-05 04:04:10
type
defect
Changes
Change at time 2012-10-12 06:22:10
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
oldvalue
4
raw-time
1349997730398700
ticket
453
time
2012-10-12 06:22:10
Change at time 2012-10-12 06:22:10
author
cowan
field
resolution
newvalue
fixed
oldvalue
raw-time
1349997730398700
ticket
453
time
2012-10-12 06:22:10
Change at time 2012-10-12 06:22:10
author
cowan
field
status
newvalue
closed
oldvalue
accepted
raw-time
1349997730398700
ticket
453
time
2012-10-12 06:22:10
Change at time 2012-07-05 04:14:27
author
alexshinn
field
comment
newvalue
oldvalue
3
raw-time
1341436467984427
ticket
453
time
2012-07-05 04:14:27
Change at time 2012-07-05 04:14:27
author
alexshinn
field
description
newvalue
Formal Comment
the submitter's name: Michael Sperber
The submitter's email address: sperber at deinprogramm.de
the draft version of the report: draft 6
a one-sentence summary of the issue: The denotational semantics is inadequate
a full description of the issue:
The denotational semantics in the draft, which seems to be copied from
R5RS, is inadequate for helping to describe those parts of the semantics
where the semantics is especially tricky, especially evaluation order
and `dynamic-wind'. This is a pity, especially as there's an R5RS
version of the semantics in R6RS:
http://www.cs.uchicago.edu/~jacobm/pubs/scheme-semantics.pdf
Moreover, there is a version of the denotational semantics that does
include `dynamic-wind' in this paper:
Martin Gasbichler, Eric Knauel, Michael Sperber Richard A. Kelsey: How
to Add Threads to a Sequential Language Without Getting Tangled Up, In
The 2003 Scheme Workshop, Boston, Ma., October 2003.
http://www.deinprogramm.de/sperber/papers/adding-threads.pdf
(I'd be happy to supply LaTeX if anybody is interested.)
PS: This is a general issue with the draft - the R6RS document contains
many improvements of the description of the language that are not about
changes in the language. (To name two other prominent examples: the
distinction and relationship between numbers and the objects that
represent them, and the description of the syntax with respect to
macros. Especially embarrassing is the pointer to the Indiana Scheme
repository, which has not been maintained for something like 14 years.)
Many parts of R7RS are throwbacks to the old, inferior wording.
oldvalue
Formal Comment
the submitter's name: Michael Sperber
The submitter's email address: sperber@deinprogramm.de
the draft version of the report: draft 6
a one-sentence summary of the issue: The denotational semantics is inadequate
a full description of the issue:
The denotational semantics in the draft, which seems to be copied from
R5RS, is inadequate for helping to describe those parts of the semantics
where the semantics is especially tricky, especially evaluation order
and `dynamic-wind'. This is a pity, especially as there's an R5RS
version of the semantics in R6RS:
http://www.cs.uchicago.edu/~jacobm/pubs/scheme-semantics.pdf
Moreover, there is a version of the denotational semantics that does
include `dynamic-wind' in this paper:
Martin Gasbichler, Eric Knauel, Michael Sperber Richard A. Kelsey: How
to Add Threads to a Sequential Language Without Getting Tangled Up, In
The 2003 Scheme Workshop, Boston, Ma., October 2003.
http://www.deinprogramm.de/sperber/papers/adding-threads.pdf
(I'd be happy to supply LaTeX if anybody is interested.)
PS: This is a general issue with the draft - the R6RS document contains
many improvements of the description of the language that are not about
changes in the language. (To name two other prominent examples: the
distinction and relationship between numbers and the objects that
represent them, and the description of the syntax with respect to
macros. Especially embarrassing is the pointer to the Indiana Scheme
repository, which has not been maintained for something like 14 years.)
Many parts of R7RS are throwbacks to the old, inferior wording.
raw-time
1341436467984427
ticket
453
time
2012-07-05 04:14:27
Change at time 2012-07-05 04:13:43
author
alexshinn
field
comment
newvalue
oldvalue
2
raw-time
1341436423042309
ticket
453
time
2012-07-05 04:13:43
Change at time 2012-07-05 04:13:43
author
alexshinn
field
status
newvalue
accepted
oldvalue
new
raw-time
1341436423042309
ticket
453
time
2012-07-05 04:13:43
Change at time 2012-07-05 04:04:56
author
alexshinn
field
comment
newvalue
oldvalue
1
raw-time
1341435896674010
ticket
453
time
2012-07-05 04:04:56
Change at time 2012-07-05 04:04:56
author
alexshinn
field
cc
newvalue
sperber@deinprogramm.de
oldvalue
raw-time
1341435896674010
ticket
453
time
2012-07-05 04:04:56