On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Lynn Winebarger wrote: > On 8/24/07, Elf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> * allow implementations to generate efficient code, without requiring >> programmers to use implementation-specific operators or declarations. >> >> again, i believe that this requirement is in error. what constitutes >> 'efficient' code is dependent on the system's intended use. a >> number-crunching >> app doesn't necessarily care about string handling. additionally, a >> one-size-fits-all 'efficiency' definition destroys the usefulness of >> individual >> implementations. > > "Allow" is not the same as "Require". One of the things Steele > demonstrated with Scheme was that requiring support for higher order > functions could still allow generation of efficient code. Mandating > proper tail recursion, on the other hand, is a requirement for > generating efficient code. I think that part of previous scheme > reports was a great idea. > > Lynn >
apologies for my being unclear. i was referring only to the 'implementation responsibilities' and decisions for what should be 'standard library', as well as such decisions as immutability. i was not trying to say that no efficiency requirements could be language requirements as well (eg tail recursion). -elf _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
