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

From: John Cowan <cowan>
Date: Mon Feb 26 08:37:04 2007

Jon Wilson scripsit:

> Certainly, a compiler must have some course of action which it takes
> when it runs into code which it cannot translate into machine code, but
> that seems not to be the issue here. It seems (upon a moderately
> cursory reading of this thread) that the issue at hand is code which the
> compiler could certainly compile, but which would be problematic at
> runtime.

Because the standard specifies that violations can be caught at runtime,
these supposed two cases are actually the same. Do you really insist
that a compiler passed, say, the text of this email message should
meekly generate an executable that when run says "Syntax error"?

-- 
My corporate data's a mess!                     John Cowan
It's all semi-structured, no less.              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    But I'll be carefree                        cowan_at_ccil.org
    Using XSLT
On an XML DBMS.
Received on Mon Feb 26 2007 - 08:36:48 UTC

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