I am posting this as an individual member of the Scheme community. I am not speaking for the R6RS editors, and this message should not be confused with the editors' eventual formal response.
Anton van Straaten wrote: > However, it's not clear to me from the current subthread whether anyone > is objecting to giving this much discretion to implementations, and > instead would like R6RS to either require or forbid aggressive early > error detection. If there are such objections, I suggest that they be > raised explicitly (apologies if they were and I missed them). By my accounting, no one has yet objected to giving implementations discretion with respect to warnings. By my accounting, the following messages object to giving implementations discretion to reject programs before running them: http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2007-February/001642.html http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2007-February/001645.html http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2007-February/001650.html http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2007-February/001675.html http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2007-February/001683.html http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2007-February/001721.html http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2007-February/001728.html The following message suggests that conforming implementations could offer a special non-conforming mode in which they have unlimited discretion to reject programs before running them: http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2007-February/001668.html The following message appears to be a blanket objection to requiring any rejection of programs before running them: http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2007-February/001696.html I have taken the liberty of citing only message from each person who appears to have objected. Will _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
