Jon Wilson wrote:
Hi Anton,
Anton van Straaten wrote:
Why wouldn't this simply be a quality of implementation issue? User
B should complain to the authors of the "smarter" Scheme
implementation, who in the most likely scenario, would point out to
her that there's a compiler option to relax checking. I don't see
that attempting to guard against situations like this is a necessary
or even important function of R6RS.
I do. It seems like a large portion of the purpose behind writing a
spec in the first place is to ensure some degree of portability
between implementations. Allowing situations like this is tantamount
to allowing programs written in perfect R6RS compliance to fail to run
on a perfectly R6RS compliant implementation. Somehow, this strikes
me as a Bad Thing. It dilutes the strength of "compliance" and make
portability a more difficult thing to achieve.
I wonder if the Scheme community hasn't inherited some
needless superstition from the Common Lisp folks who matured
and struggled with "A.I. winter" etc.
-t
Regards,
Jon Wilson
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
