John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> schrieb am So., 2. Juli 2017 um 21:02 Uhr:

On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:

As a solution I propose to interpret/change the wording "Mappings are disjoint from all other Scheme types" as/into "Mappings are disjoint from all Scheme types that were in existence when the library was loaded for the first time."

Given that we know we'll have to clean it up, I would leave it alone. "In existence" is rather vague, anyway: does it mean "exists as a SRFI" or "is loaded into this process" or what?

"Exists as a SRFI" would be a rather strange semantics, wouldn't it? No, I meant "loaded into this process".

So, mapping? would return #f on all existing objects and on all possible return values of existing procedures, where "existing" means "existing in the Scheme process before the mapping library was loaded".

As we have to clean it up anyway, we may be able to come up with the right wording even before finalizing this SRFI.

I currently believe that the semantics I am proposing is the right one, although my wording is not precise enough.

Marc

--
John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org
Is not a patron, my Lord [Chesterfield], one who looks with unconcern
on a man struggling for life in the water, and when he has reached ground
encumbers him with help? --Samuel Johnson