Per Bothner wrote:
If you need a place-holder for code that you haven't written yet,
you use something like:
(error "not yet implemented")
That's a nice strategy in *some* situations. The strategy
Pascal suggests is, as well.
A language specification shouldn't make any assumptions about the
software development "methodology" that I want to use.
Why not?
s/a language specification/ the specification of scheme/
and consider the intro to the spec, the history, etc.
I think it is good if a language specification makes it
easier to follow good practices - for whatever one believes are
good practices, of course!
You're going to force me to invoke that silly rule about
usenet discussions by quoting stallman about "fascist
with a read-only mind" if you aren't careful ;-)
Gcc, one of the larger and more complex Free Software programs
out there, years ago switched to building with many warnings
check for - and warnings teated as errors. This, we've learned,
is a good idea.
GCC == C? (Roughly true but more or less to the detriment
of both and entirely for bogus outcomes of microeconomic
processes dominated by people behaving badly.)
Anyway, I'm not sure there is much point in arguing over this
- implementors will do what they want to.
Hmm. Now *there's* a good perspective to reflect in a
language standard.
Bitter as I wanna be,
-t
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
