Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!bobg+ From: bobg+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert Steven Glickstein) Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re: Order of evaluation (was Re: evaluating () should be an error Message-ID: Date: 27 Mar 91 15:18:24 GMT References: <2977@kraftbus.cs.tu-berlin.de> <1991Mar26.155905.12906@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> , <1991Mar26.224805.23381@cs.ubc.ca>, <3138*manis@cs.ubc.ca> Organization: Information Technology Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 14 In-Reply-To: <3138*manis@cs.ubc.ca> Vincent Manis has pointed out to me that I am wrong (c.f. my earlier post about order of evaluation of N operands being the same for given N). My misunderstanding arose from the explanation of the semantics of "permute" and "unpermute" from R3.99, section 7.2 (formal semantics). "Permute" and "unpermute" *do* have the behavior I described, but it is also noted that this is only an approximation to the intended semantics of combinations. ______________ _____________________________ Bob Glickstein | Internet: bobg@andrew.cmu.edu Information Technology Center | Bitnet: bobg%andrew@cmuccvma.bitnet Carnegie Mellon University | UUCP: ...!harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!bobg Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890 | (412) 268-6743 | Sinners can repent, but stupid is forever