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

From: John Cowan <cowan>
Date: Sun Feb 25 16:44:56 2007

William D Clinger scripsit:

> 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.

According to 2.7, however, if there is a syntax error (and

        (if (foo))

is a syntax error, just as

        ((((((

is, the program or library is not allowed to begin execution.
In the former case, I do not see how raising an exception can possibly
take effect; in the latter case, there can't possibly be any handler
at all.

-- 
A few times, I did some exuberant stomping about,       John Cowan
like a hippo auditioning for Riverdance, though         cowan_at_ccil.org
I stopped when I thought I heard something at           http://ccil.org/~cowan
the far side of the room falling over in rhythm
with my feet.  -- Joseph Zitt
Received on Sun Feb 25 2007 - 16:44:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Oct 23 2024 - 09:15:01 UTC