[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Procedural equivalence: the last debate
- To: William D Clinger <will@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] Procedural equivalence: the last debate
- From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 12:52:45 -0400
- Cc: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <17121055.2310141370445394077.JavaMail.root@zimbra>
- References: <5164207.2310021370445283397.JavaMail.root@zimbra> <17121055.2310141370445394077.JavaMail.root@zimbra>
William D Clinger scripsit:
> With regard to the R5RS semantics, John has explained his reasoning.
> -From- John's explanation, I know he jumped to a false conclusion
> via an invalid generalization based on his incorrect guess about the
> purpose of two examples. I will post on this at length when I have
> time this evening (and access to my archives).
I look forward to this with bait on my breath.
If I read "upcoming" in [the newspaper] John Cowan
once more, I will be downcoming http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and somebody will be outgoing. cowan@x
Scheme-reports mailing list