[r6rs-discuss] Interpreters need not apply?

From: Jon Wilson <j85wilson>
Date: Wed Mar 7 18:24:27 2007

Hi Ludovic,

Ludovic Court?s wrote:
> One might argue that an option for interpreters would be to offer the
> possibility to toggle between "lazy compilation/evaluation" (as they
> currently do) and the compiler-like, split-phase approach that is
> mandated by R6RS: the latter could be used during the program
> development phase, and the former could be used when using the program
> in "production" systems. However, this effectively requires
> implementors of interpreters to provide... a compiler.
>
Wouldn't this then make the implementation non-R6RS conforming? If R6RS
mandates something, and an implementation does it differently, then it
is breaking the standard. It seems that the standard ought to be
written in such a way that people intending to write and use practical
implementations in practical applications will not have a strong desire
or need to depart from the standard's mandates. In short, I agree that
the state of affairs is as you describe, and I think that this is a Bad
Thing.
Regards,
Jon
Received on Wed Mar 07 2007 - 18:24:12 UTC