From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mark H Weaver Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: bug#16158: psyntax: bug in bound-identifier=? Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:03:52 -0500 Message-ID: <87txe8dsyf.fsf@netris.org> References: <87bo0hfyq3.fsf@netris.org> <87d2kxfd69.fsf@governatore.luna> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1387253175 1667 80.91.229.3 (17 Dec 2013 04:06:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 04:06:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 16158@debbugs.gnu.org To: marco.maggi-ipsu@poste.it Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 17 05:06:20 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VslvH-0001n4-HI for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 05:06:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59545 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VslvH-0003a4-14 for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:06:19 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56803) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vslv7-0003Zr-II for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:06:15 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vslv1-00044S-CJ for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:06:09 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:40788) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vslv1-00044O-9K for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:06:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vslv0-0000c5-Vq for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:06:03 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Mark H Weaver Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guile@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 04:06:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 16158 X-GNU-PR-Package: guile X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 16158-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B16158.13872531242285 (code B ref 16158); Tue, 17 Dec 2013 04:06:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 16158) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Dec 2013 04:05:24 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54807 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VsluO-0000al-3H for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:05:24 -0500 Original-Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:49455) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VsluK-0000ab-AK for 16158@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:05:21 -0500 Original-Received: from 209-6-91-212.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.91.212] helo=yeeloong) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VsluD-0000GJ-7r; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:05:13 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87d2kxfd69.fsf@governatore.luna> (Marco Maggi's message of "Mon, 16 Dec 2013 08:49:34 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:7365 Archived-At: Marco Maggi writes: > IMHO it is an error in the paper. Some paragraphs from the paper > preceding "the one" have been recycled in the R6RS document, but this > one paragraph has not; maybe this means something. Interesting. I looked closer, and found this in the R6RS definition of 'bound-identifier=3D?': Operationally, two identifiers are considered equivalent by bound-identifier=3D? if and only if they have the same name and same marks (section 12.1). I also found this in the R6RS errata: =C2=A7 12.1 The remark "An algebra that defines how marks and substitutions work more precisely is given in section~2.4 of Oscar Waddell's PhD thesis." is somewhat misleading and should be qualified as follows: "Note, however, that Waddell's thesis describes slightly different semantics for bound-identifier=3D? - it specifies that for two identifiers to be equal in the sense of bound-identifier=3D?, they must have the same marks and be equal in the sense of free-identifier=3D?, whereas this report requires instead that they must have the same marks and have the same name." I guess that Kent Dybvig changed his mind about how 'bound-identifier=3D?' should behave. I don't fully understand the issues, so I'm inclined to go along with the R6RS definition. Therefore, I've reverted 70c74b847680d3b239e591afa2e99c51a712980c. Thanks, Mark