Yes, it does. Your response, and re-reading the draft, and I think I get it
now. Thanks.
Brian C. Barnes.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Sperber [mailto:sperber at informatik.uni-tuebingen.de]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 02:18
To: Brian C. Barnes
Cc: r6rs-discuss at lists.r6rs.org
Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] Confused about import version specification
"and" and "or"
"Brian C. Barnes" <bcbarnes at austin.rr.com> writes:
> In the table from section 6.1 of r5.93 where examples of various version
> references are shown, it appears that the last four entries:
>
> ((or 1 2 3)) (1) yes
> ((or 1 2 3)) (2) yes
> ((or 1 2 3)) (3) yes
> ((or 1 2 3)) (4) no
>
> Should in fact be:
>
> (or (1) (2) (3)) (1) yes
> (or (1) (2) (3)) (2) yes
> (or (1) (2) (3)) (3) yes
> (or (1) (2) (3)) (4) no
No, they shouldn't. However, your entries are pairwise equivalent to
the one in the report draft. If you look in the grammar, you'll see
that there are two `or's.
> Can someone either confirm that this is an error, or clarify for me just
> what the original four entries are trying to show?
The draft's set of entries make statements about the first digit of the
version numbers. Your set of entries each make statements about a
one-digit prefix of the version numbers.
Does this help?
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Thu May 24 2007 - 03:41:15 UTC