On Mar 7, 2007, at 6:24 PM, Jon Wilson wrote:
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?
Not necessarily. Implementations can provide implementation-specific
and nonstandard features. Such features may be completely missing
from the report (gui, threads, sockets, etc.) or even contradict the
report (lazy evaluation, static typing, no macros by default). An
implementation is R6RS-conforming as long as there is some way of
getting the R6RS-required features.
Aziz,,,
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
