[r6rs-discuss] Now, where were we?
andrew-scheme at areilly.bpc-users.org
Mon Feb 23 21:53:48 EST 2009
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 08:17:07AM -0500, Sam TH wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Andrew Reilly
> <andrew-scheme at areilly.bpc-users.org> wrote:
> > What I don't understand is why having some nicely defined
> > meaning for "finished" programs should preclude a useful
> > semantics for "work-in-progress" programs (REPL). Can't we have
> > both? Please?
> The trouble is that it's hard to give them consistent semantics.
Is it important that they be completely consistent? I'd be
happy with "reasonable in each context", even if that means that
there are two slightly different languages involved.
Most of the time it probably doesn't matter if the languages
provided at REPLs are implemntation-dependent, but the big place
where I suspect that standarzation does matter is for textbooks,
where the ability to give examples just like you did ("type this
and see that this is the result") is used quite a bit.
More information about the r6rs-discuss