First off, thanks for the comment. I'll try to clarify the situation
in the next draft. I'll only comment on some points of contention:
AndrevanTonder <andre_at_het.brown.edu> writes:
> * Several syntactic datums can
> represent the same datum value,
>
> I'm unsure what is meant by this. For example, do the two 1s in (cons
> 1 1) count as distinct syntactic datums that may represent the same
> value,
No, because textually, they're the same.
> or does this only refer to the fact that 1.0 and 1.00000 may
> represent the same value (as stated in chapter 3)?
That, and the fact that syntactic datums may differ in other aspects
such as whitespace.
> * but the datum value corresponding to a
> syntactic datum is uniquely determined.
>
> I also find this confusing. Clearly this cannot mean uniqueness with
> respect to eq? Does this mean uniqueness with respect to equal? ?
No. It means what it says: "uniquely determined" isn't quite the same
thing as "unique". Maybe I don't understand your interpretation of
the wording.
> Section 4.8 says:
>
> * It is desirable for constants (i.e. the values of literal expressions) to
> reside in read-only-memory.
>
> I assume that the term "constant" here refers to what is called "datum value"
> in section 1.9. If so, it may be better to use the same terminology.
It so happens that, as currently specified, constants always datum
values, but the term "constant" seems more appropriate here. Not all
datum values are the values of literal expressions, and it is possible
to image Scheme implementations where not all constants are datum values.
> The next line says:
>
> * Literal constants, the strings returned by symbol->string, records with no
> mutable fields, and other values explicitly designated as
> immutable are immutable objects, ...
>
> Again, now datum values are called literal constants instead of the
> previously established terminology.
See above.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Wed Mar 28 2007 - 05:20:26 UTC