[R6RS] draft statement on safety

[Michael Sperber]

William D Clinger <will at ccs.neu.edu> writes:

> I suggest you consider what you mean by the word "crash".
> If you believe that the meaning of the word "crash" is
> sufficiently well-understood so it can be used without
> defining it, then you could revise the safety statement
> to say
>
>     If a Scheme script is said to be safe, then its execution
>     cannot go so badly wrong as to crash or to behave in ways
>     that are inconsistent with the semantics described in this
>     document, unless said execution first encounters some
>     implementation restriction or other defect in the
>     implementation of Scheme that is executing the script.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what this says: I'm reading "encounters" as
roughtly equivalent to "detects".  Now, implementation restrictions
and defects correspond to condition types we're defining, and I read
this to imply that an exception must be raised.  Moreover, will
((lambda (x) x) (values 1 2)) meet an implementation restriction or a
defect?  I'm thinking that in Larceny it certainly won't be an
implementation restriction, so what's left is a defect.  Is that the
right word to classify it?  I think I'm wrong in my reading somewhere
along the way, but I don't know where.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla