COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00001 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂15-Jan-77  1211	HJS   via NBST	LISP 
John, 

The file with a description of an anomaly which I seem to have found 
with deep binding is called ANOMLY[L,HJS].  Please correct me if I am 
wrong (not an unlikely prospect).  Will type in Baker comments soon.  

                                      Hanan, 

∂15-Jan-77  2202	HJS   via NBST	paper
John, 

my comments and questions are in REFRPT[L,HJS].  Please let me 
know if you agree and whether or not they are correct.  I am not 100% 
sure about my claim that his re-rooting operation will not work 
when there is an assignment operation.  Likewise for the SHALLOW comment.  
I will log in tomorrow morning at around 5:30AM your time.  
Thanks.  

                                    Hanan, 

∂18-Jan-77  1429	HJS   via NBST	book 
John, 

There seems to be an error in eval in chapter 2.  QUOTE should be 
checked by EVAL and not by APPLY.  Also in my versions of chapter 
4 there are a number of errors with respect to missing quote.  
Weizenbaum diagrams of compose seem to be erroneous.  

Did you look at Henry's paper.  I will probably recommend that 
he revise paper to include my comments and resubmit.  My 
anomalies are probably just misconceptions about SETQ.  
I may log on tomorrow morning.  

                                  Hanan, 

∂07-Feb-77  1207	HJS   via NBST	Urmi 
John, 

Thanks for sending Jaak Urmi's paper.  I read it and it is a very 
good explanation of shallow binding.  I have made 
modifications to it and other shallow binding schemes to handle the SETQ 
anomaly we discussed.  After reading Urmi's paper I feel that  
Henry Baker's shallow binding scheme is identical to Urmi's 
shallow surfaces.  The only difference is that Urmi does not 
require all variable to be bound at each new environment (i.e. newly 
bound).  Is Urmi's paper being published anywhere?  Let me know 
if you have any answers and if you agree with my 
analysis.  He also explains Greenblatt's scheme quite well.  

Earlier I told you that you should check for QUOTE in your 
EVAL in one of the earlier chapters.  At the risk of 
being put down again I repeat it.  You can't do 

if isconst(exp) then exp 

and expect QUOTE to be handled properly since you want 

if isquote(exp) then second(exp)  

Other comments will be in the mail in the form of 
pencil scratchings on copies of the manuscript.  When will the 
remaining chapters arrive?  

How on earth did you ever figure out Wegbreit's paper on 
"Retrieval from Context Trees" in Information Processing Letters.  
I understand your explanation but can't figure out his "depth" 
argument.  Help?  

Hope everything is OK.  Will try to write up shallow binding stuff and send 
to you.  Regards.  


                               Hanan,