[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Allow compilers to reject obvious violations

From: Matthias Felleisen <matthias>
Date: Sun Feb 25 10:09:49 2007

On Feb 25, 2007, at 12:07 AM, r6rs-discuss-request_at_lists.r6rs.org wrote:

> Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>> 2. Naturally I don't reject type systems per se but I think that
>> a serious
>> language definition shouldn't introduce such systems without
>> specifying
>> them. Otherwise a language/implementation will appear
>> whimsical to
>> programmers.
>
> The current draft already mandates hundreds of runtime
> exceptions whose whimsical purpose is to make programs
> that violate the requirements of the R6RS less likely
> to run to completion. Why should that kind of whimsy
> be limited to run time?

This is not true. The report comes with a formal and executable
specification of the operational semantics of R6R Scheme. I can
determine whether or not a program's behavior is within the
parameters of this specification.

What I am asking for is an equally precise specification of the "type
system." That's all. (And I would be happy with stylized English that
spells out the analysis that compilers are expected to perform.)

-- Matthias
Received on Sun Feb 25 2007 - 10:09:36 UTC