[I am posting this as an individual member of the Scheme community. I
am not speaking for the R6RS editors.]
William D Clinger wrote:
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:
Thanks for the accounting, that's very helpful.
I should clarify the intent behind my comment: much of the discussion in
the subthread in which I responded -- which would be tedious to define
precisely, but it excludes the Clinger/Felleisen discussion -- seemed to
be taking positions on when certain kinds of errors should or even must
be reported, without making it completely clear (to me at least) exactly
what was being expected of R6RS in that regard, if anything.
While comments have been clear about whether the author would find it
acceptable for R6RS to either require or forbid a particular error
response scenario, it has not always been as clear to me what the same
author believes about the relevance to the case for implementation
discretion.
Anton
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
