On Feb 26, 2007, at 11:48 AM, Pascal Costanza wrote:
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.
Just to be clear, do you mean "...as well as to completely reject
running [entire] programs that [contain parts that] are provably
incorrect?" That's the distinction I'm worried about.
I don't mind if this program can't run:
)(*$#%()*#$
I just want to be able to test FACTORIAL in this program without
having to fix FOO:
(define (factorial n) (if (< n 2) 1 (* n (factorial (- n 1)))))
(define (foo) (factorial))
Of course, this is a contrived example. This problem only becomes
important when FOO is a large body of code, not just a one-liner.
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
