On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 10:37 -0400, R. Kent Dybvig wrote: > > Should I add an erratum for this? > > Probably. With the present wording, an implementation could probably > justify going either way,
The freedom of an implementation to go either way on that point is a good reflection of the fact that neither way is obviously better than the other *and* it is easy for programs to not rely on one way or the other. Changing the language to force one choice is just arbitrary. It adds an implementation burden. It punts on the question of which choice is better. "Unspecified" seems like the accurate spec. -t > since checking argument counts and types might > or might not be considered the responsibility of the procedure. > > Kent > > _______________________________________________ > 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
