On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen < [email protected]> wrote:
> > If not specifying this behaviour (the behaviour of runtime bindings of > identifiers of libraries imported more than once) in R7RS (although it is > implemented the same in all known implementations) means that it is > neccessary to make such contortions to write portable code, then that's a > flaw in the R7RS (small) specification. > Perhaps I missed something, but what contortions are you referring to? The bindings will always be the same, and the code listed in all of the examples will simply work, in all existing and likely implementations. If you want to introduce language to guarantee that the bindings will always be the same, then you also have introduce the notion of phasing, and the whole can of worms involved therein. Proposals welcome! -- Alex P.S. Many, many things are intentionally left unspecified to accommodate the wide variety of Scheme implementations. It's one of the quirky aspects of the Scheme reports that people disagree about, and one reason we made a small/large language split for R7RS. It sounds like you may prefer the large language - they are recruiting :)
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
