On Feb 24, 2007, at 4:54 PM, William D Clinger wrote:
Matthias Felleisen wrote:
2. Naturally I don't reject type systems per se but I think that
a serious
language definition shouldn't introduce such systems without
specifying
them. Otherwise a language/implementation will appear
whimsical to
programmers.
The current draft already mandates hundreds of runtime
exceptions whose whimsical purpose is to make programs
that violate the requirements of the R6RS less likely
to run to completion. Why should that kind of whimsy
be limited to run time?
My only concern is that an error in one part of my program should not
prevent me from running another part of the program. The thing I
most dislike about most statically typed language implementations is
that they prevent me from testing a program that isn't yet completely
type-correct when I'm not even planning to invoke the broken part of
the program. I suppose that this suggestion only allows, but doesn't
require, compiler writers to signal errors it can detect at compile
time. Still, I'd rather not encourage this behavior if it makes it
impossible to run programs that are not yet completely correct.
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
