This post was rejected because I used the wrong from address the first time.
Apologies for the confusion.
Robby
On 1/22/07, Robby Findler <robby.findler_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> PS: it is really the evaluation contexts for begin that make this work
> (specifically the star on the evaluation context inside a begin). The
> text accompanying the semantics explains this in more detail. If it
> isn't clear, I'd welcome hints on what wasn't clear about it.
>
> Thanks,
> Robby
>
> On 1/22/07, Robby Findler <robby.findler_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > The formal semantics indeed does specify this.
> >
> > FWIW, you can try these (and other) expressions out in the formal
> > semantics. They come with a stepper (download from the r6rs website).
> >
> > Robby
> >
> > On 1/22/07, David Van Horn <dvanhorn_at_cs.brandeis.edu> wrote:
> > > John Cowan wrote:
> > > > David Van Horn scripsit:
> > > >
> > > >> But `begin' allows that expression to evaluate to zero or more values.
> > > >
> > > > Where in R5.92RS does this statement appear? Not under "begin", and not
> > > > under "values", which is the source of the claim that it's an error to
> > > > pass an inappropriate number of values to any continuation not created
> > > > by call-with-values. There is an ad hoc remark about begin-expressions
> > > > being allowed to return zero or more values in Section 8, which deals with
> > > > expanding macros in top-levele bodies, but nowhere else that I can find.
> > >
> > > I took this from the ad-hoc remarks at the end of Section 8. The formal
> > > semantics imply this behavior as well, namely rule [6beginc]. The text
> > > describing `begin', Section 9.5.7, could certainly be more explicit.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > r6rs-discuss mailing list
> > > r6rs-discuss_at_lists.r6rs.org
> > > http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
> > >
> >
>
Received on Mon Jan 22 2007 - 13:10:02 UTC