Re: the point of (any) semantics, was Re: semantics for F_{sub,rec} ??

Matthias Felleisen wrote:

> Andrew and I studied the proof and found that we had skipped one of the 
> cases with "like the others." It wasn't like the others .. and it didn't
> work.

It happens to the best of us. I think the Subject should be
   "The point of machine checked proofs"