[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Minor "typos" in 20.3

From: Michael Sperber <sperber>
Date: Sun Nov 26 09:16:25 2006

Eli Barzilay <eli_at_barzilay.org> writes:

> At the end of the `delay' description, there is a sentence that says:
> "See the description of `force' (section 20.3)" and there is a similar
> reference in `force' to the `delay' section. It's a little awkward to
> have references include the section number when the reference is to
> the next or previous paragraph.

Will do; thanks.

> (I don't remember now if this happens elsewhere too.)

It's possibly. There was a lot of shuffling around towards the end.

> Also, the sample implementation is still using a procedural value for
> no good reason, now that it is possible to make a new record type.

On the other hand (leaving aside the more general question of
improvements to promises discussed elsewhere), why would a new record
type be preferable?

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Sun Nov 26 2006 - 09:16:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Oct 23 2024 - 09:15:00 UTC