[racket] Semaphore obscurities

Tobias, hello.

On 27 Sep 2012, at 09:37, Tobias Hammer <tobias.hammer at dlr.de> wrote:

> According to [1] this is the expected behavior. There is stated that
> 
> "When a “rest argument” is declared after optional arguments, arguments
> in an application are first consumed by the optional-argument positions,
> so the rest argument is non-empty only when more arguments
> are provided that the total number of required and optional
> arguments."

Aha -- that certainly makes sense.  I suppose the real problem here -- if indeed there is one -- is that there's a 'folk grammar' of expressions like this, acquired by observation from man pages and RFCs and the like, which it's probably hard to override in any document.  So no bug there.

Best wishes,

Norman


-- 
Norman Gray  :  http://nxg.me.uk
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK