William D Clinger <will_at_ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> Mike Sperber asked:
>> Why is it not enough for the compiler to just issue a warning, and to
>> then abort at run time? (Scheme 48 also does some degree of arity
>> checking at compile time, and offers a special mode to make warnings
>> abort the compiler.)
>
> According to the current draft R6RS, implementations
> are not allowed to "abort at run time"; they would
> have to raise a &violation exception, from which the
> program might conceivably recover in a portable way.
This isn't the issue of my question, which I should probably have
worded in the hypothetical. (As I explained, the omission provision
that the program might abort at run time where currently a &violation
is required is mostly editorial oversight.) Let me try again:
Why would it not enough for the compiler to just issue a warning,
and to then abort at run time?
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Sun Feb 25 2007 - 11:51:14 UTC