Jon Wilson scripsit: > Certainly, a compiler must have some course of action which it takes > when it runs into code which it cannot translate into machine code, but > that seems not to be the issue here. It seems (upon a moderately > cursory reading of this thread) that the issue at hand is code which the > compiler could certainly compile, but which would be problematic at > runtime.
Because the standard specifies that violations can be caught at runtime, these supposed two cases are actually the same. Do you really insist that a compiler passed, say, the text of this email message should meekly generate an executable that when run says "Syntax error"? -- My corporate data's a mess! John Cowan It's all semi-structured, no less. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan But I'll be carefree [EMAIL PROTECTED] Using XSLT On an XML DBMS. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
