On Feb 25, 2007, at 12:07 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?
This is not true. The report comes with a formal and executable
specification of the operational semantics of R6R Scheme. I can
determine whether or not a program's behavior is within the
parameters of this specification.
What I am asking for is an equally precise specification of the "type
system." That's all. (And I would be happy with stylized English that
spells out the analysis that compilers are expected to perform.)
-- Matthias
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
