[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Trivial Enhancement of macros in v5.91:
William D Clinger
will at ccs.neu.edu
Thu Nov 30 08:01:30 EST 2006
I am posting this as an individual member of the Scheme
community. I am not speaking for the R6RS editors, and
this message should not be confused with the editors'
eventual formal response.
Andre van Tonder quoting me:
> > ... the reference implementation
> > of arithmetic will be invoked twice, making some of their
> > fundamental types incompatible.
> Would the fundamental types not be more naturally non-generative, or am I
> missing some aspect of generativity?
Yes, they would be non-generative, but with the draft
R6RS that is expressed by using a symbol. With the
separated binding, invoke-separately-for-each-phase
semantics, an L1-symbol is not an L0-symbol. Thus
even the non-generative types are different in L0
With the shared binding, invoke-once semantics,
non-generative record types work as programmers
expect, but the draft R6RS doesn't guarantee that
More information about the r6rs-discuss