Hi Ludovic,
Ludovic Courtès wrote:
One might argue that an option for interpreters would be to offer the
possibility to toggle between "lazy compilation/evaluation" (as they
currently do) and the compiler-like, split-phase approach that is
mandated by R6RS: the latter could be used during the program
development phase, and the former could be used when using the program
in "production" systems. However, this effectively requires
implementors of interpreters to provide... a compiler.
Wouldn't this then make the implementation non-R6RS conforming? If R6RS
mandates something, and an implementation does it differently, then it
is breaking the standard. It seems that the standard ought to be
written in such a way that people intending to write and use practical
implementations in practical applications will not have a strong desire
or need to depart from the standard's mandates. In short, I agree that
the state of affairs is as you describe, and I think that this is a Bad
Thing.
Regards,
Jon
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
