[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Error in the SRFI-30 formal specification

To: Alsatian Petrofsky <alsatian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Error in the SRFI-30 formal specification
From: Martin Gasbichler <gasbichl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:43:41 +0100
Cc: srfi-30@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: srfi-30@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200212282128.NAA31604@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Alsatian Petrofsky's message of "Sat, 28 Dec 2002 13:28:46 -0800")
References: <20020720211256.A31957@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <vya7kj57lia.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200212282128.NAA31604@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Gnus/5.090007 (Oort Gnus v0.07) XEmacs/21.5 (brussels sprouts, i386-unknown-freebsd4.6.2)

>>>>> "Alsatian" == Alsatian Petrofsky <alsatian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Alsatian> I was just looking at the final SRFI-30 and noticed that the
Alsatian> production rules are ambiguous.  I see that this was brought up on the
Alsatian> discussion list, but I don't think it was resolved correctly.  Sorry I
Alsatian> wasn't paying attention in August.

You are right, the grammar of the SRFI is bogus.

There will be a new SRFI soon, thanks for spotting this.

-- 
Martin

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Error in the SRFI-30 formal specification
  - From: Almanac Petrofsky

References:
- Error in the SRFI-30 formal specification
  - From: Alsatian Petrofsky

Prev by Date: Error in the SRFI-30 formal specification
Next by Date: Re: Error in the SRFI-30 formal specification
Previous by thread: Error in the SRFI-30 formal specification
Next by thread: Re: Error in the SRFI-30 formal specification
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread