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

From: Jon Wilson <j85wilson>
Date: Tue Feb 27 18:53:15 2007

Hi Anton,

Anton van Straaten wrote:
> Why wouldn't this simply be a quality of implementation issue? User B
> should complain to the authors of the "smarter" Scheme implementation,
> who in the most likely scenario, would point out to her that there's a
> compiler option to relax checking. I don't see that attempting to
> guard against situations like this is a necessary or even important
> function of R6RS.

I do. It seems like a large portion of the purpose behind writing a
spec in the first place is to ensure some degree of portability between
implementations. Allowing situations like this is tantamount to
allowing programs written in perfect R6RS compliance to fail to run on a
perfectly R6RS compliant implementation. Somehow, this strikes me as a
Bad Thing. It dilutes the strength of "compliance" and make portability
a more difficult thing to achieve.

Regards,
Jon Wilson
Received on Tue Feb 27 2007 - 18:53:03 UTC