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.
John Cowan wrote: > It is perhaps worth pointing out that a standard can have nothing to > say about applications (or modes of applications) that don't claim > conformance. To make gcc a conformant C compiler, you must say > "gcc -ansi -pedantic -trigraphs", I believe. Yes. It is perhaps worth pointing out that a standard can have a non-binding appendix that explains how a conformant implementation of R6RS might be invoked by incanting "klepto -r6rs -silly -annoy-user-greatly" and clicking "YES" when the dialog box asks "Are you REALLY sure you want to do this?" I am not saying this interface should be required of all conforming implementations. If it were required only of implementations that run on Unix, I would be happy. Will _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
