[r6rs-discuss] Re: Allow compilers to reject obvious violations

From: William D Clinger <will>
Date: Mon Feb 26 00:21:02 2007

I am posting this as an individual member of the Scheme
community. I am not speaking for the R6RS editors, and
this message should not be confused with the editors'
eventual formal response.

Matthias Felleisen quoting me:
> > (I am discounting portability somewhat,
> > because absolute portability is a lost cause in the
> > presence of low-level macros.)
>
> Ah, your true face is coming through.
>
> From what I can tell, you want a language report for compiler
> writers. Put differently, you want a rough outline of a language,
> with lots of freedom to implement whatever is easy or interesting,
> depending on the inclinations of the compiler writer.

And I thought I was lamenting the damage done by
low-level macros and one of their consequences,
the implementation-dependent choice of semantics
for library phasing. Shows what I know.

Will
Received on Mon Feb 26 2007 - 00:20:58 UTC