On Dec 28, 2007 11:47 AM, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There is letrec as letrec*,
This is a perfectly legal extension - the exact R5RS text says that "it is an error" to refer to one of the other variables. So if you do that demons might fly out of your nose, or it may magically behave like letrec*. The R6RS text is more precise and explicitly requires a distinction, but Chicken is not R6RS. > no read/write invariance for numbers, For inexact numbers, which are inexact, and R5RS makes no claims about how inexact , and they needn't be supported at all. > no bignum literals in the compiler even with the numeric egg. A fully conformant implementation doesn't need to support bignums at all. > There is also the limit on passed arguments, but I don't know if > that still applies in the new apply-hack world. Where does R5RS say proceures must support an unlimited number of arguments? That's just a standard compiler limitation - if nothing else you're always limited by available memory. It doesn't have anything to do with standards conformance. I don't mean to nitpick, but there are plenty of other Schemes that call themselves R5RS with similar extensions. -- Alex _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
