From: Bill Richter (richter@math.northwestern.edu)
Subject: Re: Clinger's sloppiness in his RichterFAQ
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Date: 2004-08-21 21:27:50 PST

Darn, I goofed.  I meant to write 

By C-F-compositionality, I mean including your words DEFINED BY.  

The obvious truth is that 
the sem functions E_i are C-F-compositional
iff
the sem functions E_i have a denotational definition
iff
the sem functions E_i have some cls-compositional definition.

Do you agree, Will?  If so, we can stop arguing about C-F and what's
meaningless.  

I hosed it as "iff the sem functions E_i are cls-compositional." 

BTW I owe Shriram an apology of sorts, because I singled him out
for bad leadership.  What I really meant is that Shriram really
seems to be trying to assert good leadership on cls, in order to
improve the health/state of Scheme. And then I should've meant:
that kind of leadership would be really time-consuming, probably
nobody can do it, and half-measures might be useless. 

But I think something else too, about the state of cls:  I've often
thought there was way too many "theological arguments", long 
threads where I had no idea what anyone was arguing about, but there
was a lot of heat.  I've got a bold conjecture: the problem with
"theological threads" is not enough mathematical precision.