scheme-reports-wg1

Regarding +inf.0i, there is already a specific case handling this: <complex R> -> <infnan

For the record I agree. When the cited ballot was made, we had already switched to R6RS semantics.

Thank you John, for all your hard work over the years, both in WG1 and WG2. It was a pleasure to

On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 9:07 PM Alex Shinn <alex...@gmail.com> wrote: To recap: Thanks. It

Reviewed. On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 6:18 AM John Cowan <co...@ccil.org> wrote: Someone should

I just put a pull request through, covering #39 & #40. The latter was the only other semantics-

On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 11:56 AM Chris Hanson <c...@chris-hanson.org> wrote: 1. Taylor Campbell

> On Nov 22, 2022, at 1:09 AM, Arthur A. Gleckler <sch...@speechcode.com> wrote: > >

Listed as errata 31 and 32 in <https://github.com/johnwcowan/r7rs-work/blob/master/R7RSSmallErrata

Good idea. Brad On 6/26/22 10:01 AM, John Cowan wrote: > > I think this should become an

1. Matching does _not_ require the identifier be bound to work, so your observation adds nothing new

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 3:50 PM Daphne Preston-Kendal <d...@nonceword.org> wrote: Section 6.2.5

The parameterize form in R7RS is, at best, underspecified if read favorably. The R7RS reads: "

Am Di., 3. Aug. 2021 um 10:46 Uhr schrieb Alex Shinn <alex...@gmail.com>: I'm trying to

There are good reasons to maintain due process. If nothing else, it provides an editing cycle, which

Hello John, What you describe is a plausible scenario where the specified semantics work. But a

As originally written, `guard` invokes `raise-continuable` when none of the guard clauses is

Andy WIngo pointed out on #guile that the definition of `symbol=?` has the same problem as the

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 3:16 PM Alex Shinn <alex...@gmail.com> wrote: Allowing Numeric

Voting is now closed on the Tangerine Edition ballot and the accompanying Orange Edition straw poll.

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 3:20 PM Ivan Raikov <ivan.g...@gmail.com> wrote: Isn't the

I have sent a request to the SRFI Editor to remove all references to u1vectors (bitvectors) from SRFI

Ok, now I believe what you're proposing is scoping labels to the file / textual-port they are

Nobody has voted in the last eight days. To make reaching the forms easier, I have created two short

Nobody speaks for WG1 nowadays, but your message is duly forwarded. As for giving R5RS semantics to

I received this report with a request to forward it to WG1. You who receive this message are WG1 for

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Aaron W. Hsu <arc...@sacrideo.us> wrote: Oi Oi Oi! LOL, this

I have uploaded the repo for the R7RS-small report to <https://bitbucket.org/cowan/r7rs>.

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 8:53 PM, William D Clinger <wi...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: That, however, is

Formal semantics folks should look at this. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mark H