Donn Cave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But you're asking for more than that. We're not just talking > about how people think about value, you want a definition that's > suitable for a language reference. Whereupon you would indeed > run into the kinds of questions you pose above, and more.
I know the Scheme standard includes a formal mathematical description of the language semantics, maybe because the felt the usual verbiage couldn't be precise enough. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
