[plt-scheme] Re: Scheme workshop survey

On Oct 19, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk at cs.brown.edu>  
wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Richard Cleis <rcleis at me.com> wrote:
>> Does the following progression make sense, by ordinary standards of
>> Ameringlish?
>>
>> (car '((a b c) x y z)) is '(a b c)
>>
>> The value of (car '((a b c) x y z)) is (a b c)
>
> Not to me.
>
>  (a b c)
>
> is an expression, not a value.  It may also be the print
> representation chosen by some particular implementation for some
> particular value, but then so is
>
>  /---+---+---\
>  | a | b | c |
>  \---+---+---/
>
> (Do you see my point?)

I see your point and agree with it.  However, we were presented with a  
question that needed to be answered without arbitration involving  
computer scientists.  The questionable wording indicated to me that  
the author simply meant: the car of ... is ___.  Learning Scheme is  
complicated by these issues of wording; I suppose it is an argument  
for rigorous representation.

RAC
>
>
> Shriram
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme