Scheme language standardization process
On Tue, 24 May 2011 13:04:21 -0400, Emmanuel Medernach <emmanuel.medernach@x> wrote: > Indeed, but in (foo X Y) I would not allow the evaluation of expression > X to interfere with Y : if X is (values X1 X2) and Y is (values), foo > could mislead X1 with X and X2 with Y as in some implementation. I mean > doesn't the report has to specify that evaluation of X has to be bound > to X only ? Indeed, how many implementation contain this semantics? Is it a semantics that is justified or should we clarify the language to not permit values passed to one continuation to "infect" another continuation? I'm of a mind that this sort of requirement would be a good thing. Aaron W. Hsu -- Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports