On 26 Feb 2007, at 19:02, William D Clinger wrote:
> By my accounting, the following messages object to
> giving implementations discretion to reject programs
> before running them:
>
> http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2007-February/001642.html
> http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2007-February/001645.html
> http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2007-February/001650.html
> http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2007-February/001675.html
> http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2007-February/001683.html
> http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2007-February/001721.html
> http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2007-February/001728.html
By your accounting, I am in that list. I don't regard myself in that
list, so I am sorry if I have given the wrong impression here. I'll
try to clarify: Implementations should be given discretion to both
run parts of programs even if other parts appear to be incorrect, as
well as to completely reject running programs that are provably
incorrect. I regard this a quality feature of an implementation, and
it should be left to the "market" which approach "wins." It shouldn't
be part of a language specification, IMHO.
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc_at_p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab
Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium
Received on Mon Feb 26 2007 - 14:48:50 UTC