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

From: Abdulaziz Ghuloum <aghuloum>
Date: Sun Feb 25 16:52:19 2007

On Feb 25, 2007, at 4:44 PM, John Cowan wrote:

> 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;

It happens when calling eval. I expect my implementation of choice not
to abort at runtime when the s-expression (if (foo)) is eval'd.

> in the latter case, there can't possibly be any handler
> at all.

Maybe you were reading a file/string containing left parentheses inside
a handler?

Aziz,,,
Received on Sun Feb 25 2007 - 16:52:05 UTC