Re: [Scheme-reports] parameterize missing parentheses

[leppie <xacc.ide@x>]

>> That should be <binding spec> instead of <expression>.
>
> I don't think so. The parameters can be specified by expressions and not just identifiers.
>
>> is missing a pair of parentheses "(<expression> <expression)*"
>
> I meant: is missing a pair of parentheses AROUND "(<expression> <expression)*"
>

I do understand the missing parenthesis part, but parameterize's
bindings looks just like a let's.

Just having <expression> makes the definition ambiguous.

As it is now, <expression> can be anything, including a 'list'.

Eg: (parameterize ((1) 2 (+ #t '())) #f) is valid, but bogus.

Making it <binding spec> should be enough to remove the ambiguity.

Cheers

leppie

-- 
http://codeplex.com/IronScheme
http://xacc.wordpress.com

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports