[r6rs-discuss] Interpreters need not apply?

From: Abdulaziz Ghuloum <aghuloum>
Date: Wed Mar 7 18:49:15 2007

On Mar 7, 2007, at 6:24 PM, Jon Wilson wrote:

> 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?

Not necessarily. Implementations can provide implementation-specific
and nonstandard features. Such features may be completely missing
from the report (gui, threads, sockets, etc.) or even contradict the
report (lazy evaluation, static typing, no macros by default). An
implementation is R6RS-conforming as long as there is some way of
getting the R6RS-required features.

Aziz,,,
Received on Wed Mar 07 2007 - 18:48:46 UTC