William D Clinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mike Sperber asked: >> Why is it not enough for the compiler to just issue a warning, and to >> then abort at run time? (Scheme 48 also does some degree of arity >> checking at compile time, and offers a special mode to make warnings >> abort the compiler.) > > According to the current draft R6RS, implementations > are not allowed to "abort at run time"; they would > have to raise a &violation exception, from which the > program might conceivably recover in a portable way.
This isn't the issue of my question, which I should probably have worded in the hypothetical. (As I explained, the omission provision that the program might abort at run time where currently a &violation is required is mostly editorial oversight.) Let me try again: Why would it not enough for the compiler to just issue a warning, and to then abort at run time? -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
