[r6rs-discuss] Proposed features for small Scheme, part 1: a stake in the ground

[Lynn Winebarger]

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:04 AM, David Rush <kumoyuki at gmail.com> wrote:

> Because there are still some broken semantics even in the
> specification when it is that small. Parallelism isn't adequately
> addressed. User data type extension mechanisms are so inconvenient as
> to be impossible to use. Continuation semantics are not orthogonal
> with procedure calls. Various numeric types are inadequately
> specified. I/O is inapropriately factored.
>
>
You've repeatedly said that continuation semantics are broken.  I
can't understand your complaint.  Could you provide more
explicit reasoning?  In particular, what would it mean for continuation
semantics to be orthogonal to procedure calls?

Thanks,
Lynn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/attachments/20090907/50fbf5ed/attachment.htm