Brian Harvey scripsit: > That's a pretty fundamental thing to leave unspecified; it hardly feels like > having a standard at all, if you can't rely on redefinition behavior across > implementations. This is much more important to standardize, imho, than > any of the other stuff we've been talking about!
What a standard leaves out, or explicitly makes implementation-defined, is as important as what it puts in, for it tells you the limits of compatibility. In this case, I think permitting compilers to inline car and cdr without worrying about being loaded into a REPL and then having those defined out from under them is something the standard should permit (though certainly not require). -- John Cowan [email protected] http://ccil.org/~cowan The whole of Gaul is quartered into three halves. --Julius Caesar _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
