Jon Wilson wrote:
> 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.
I wonder if the Scheme community hasn't inherited some
needless superstition from the Common Lisp folks who matured
and struggled with "A.I. winter" etc.
-t
>
> Regards,
> Jon Wilson
>
> _______________________________________________
> r6rs-discuss mailing list
> r6rs-discuss_at_lists.r6rs.org
> http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
>
Received on Tue Feb 27 2007 - 19:33:36 UTC