[plt-scheme] Dalek vs. FrTime

On Sun, 2004-08-15 at 20:47, Vadim Nasardinov wrote:
> Another alleged advantage of your approach is stated in the
> following paragraph:
> 
>    | Dalek applies a fixed rule to arbitrate these conflicts. In
>    | contrast, we let authors use set-running! to create flexible,
>    | application-specific rules [...]  This design addresses an
>    | important concern raised in an analysis of Dalek by Crawford,
>    | et al.
> 
> I haven't been able to find the cited reference online.

I managed to get a copy of

   Semantic issues in the design of languages for debugging.
   Crawford, R.H.; Olsson, R.A.; Ho, W.W.; Wee, C.E.
   http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isNumber=4747&page=1

Reading the paper reinforced my earlier impression that set-running!
does not address the important concern raised by Crawford, et al. in
any way, shape, or form.  They are concerned with defining a
reasonable semantics for mixing breakpoint primitives with
step-through primitives, or, in Crawford-et-al.-speak, combining
"bound blocks" of GDL code with "loosely-bound" or "free-floating
blocks".  Since you don't have bound blocks of code, this concern does
not arise in your case and, ipso facto, cannot be addressed.

Despite all that, your paper was very interesting and I'd like to
thank you again for bringing it to my attention.


Vadim