On 6/27/07, AndrevanTonder <andre at het.brown.edu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
>
> > The draft may not require an implementation compile libraries
> > separately, but it does appear that whatever the semantics are,
> compiling
> > separately or together must be equivalent.
>
> For portable libraries, I believe that is the intention, but note that
> the draft explicitly allows compiling separately or together to be
> /inequivalent/ when expand-time state is involved,
Can you point to where this statement is made?
so any libraries
> that use expand-time state in a way where this makes a difference
> to the correctness of compilation are by fiat non-portable.
>
> If you don't like that, consider the following:
>
> Libraries or programs that use runtime state are not portable.
>
> This is because, as for compilation, the draft allows a program or library
> to
> use the values of bindings left over from yesterday's, or last year's,
> instantiations, without requiring reinitialization.
>
> Where can I find the statement you indented in the draft? Is there
a section giving conditions that guarantee portability of code, rather than
intermittently declaring when it isn't?
It looks like 5.96 contains even less verbage about portability and
compilation than 5.95.
Thanks,
Lynn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/attachments/20070627/c9685a75/attachment.htm
Received on Wed Jun 27 2007 - 13:38:21 UTC