On 26 Feb 2007, at 19:02, William D Clinger wrote:
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
By your accounting, I am in that list. I don't regard myself in that list, so I am sorry if I have given the wrong impression here. I'll try to clarify: Implementations should be given discretion to both run parts of programs even if other parts appear to be incorrect, as well as to completely reject running programs that are provably incorrect. I regard this a quality feature of an implementation, and it should be left to the "market" which approach "wins." It shouldn't be part of a language specification, IMHO.
Pascal -- Pascal Costanza, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://p-cos.net Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
