[r6rs-discuss] Errors in 9.1
> In fact, it is questionable if this comment even belongs in 9.1, which talks
> about export phases. I think the sense of the formal comment response may
> have been lost between the formulation and execution. In fact, the /any/ in
> "A reference to any of these identifiers out of place is a syntax violation."
> could be taken as referring to the previously mentioned syntax-rules and
> identifier-syntax as well, which were not addressed by the formal comment
> response.
>
> Also, 9.1 seems to be going through contortions to avoid mentioning that
> these are bindings. Not referring to them as bindings is confusing, since
> it calls into question, as you noted, whether they can be shadowed.
> They should probably just be called bindings and be done with it.
I agree---I'll make sure that we fix this somehow.
Kent
Received on Tue Jun 26 2007 - 23:21:29 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Wed Oct 23 2024 - 09:15:01 UTC