[R6RS] draft statement on safety

[Michael Sperber]

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

> That, to my mind, is the most appropriate definition
> of safety for the kind of language described by the
> R6RS.  Things can go wrong to the point of raising an
> exception, but if they go wrong worse than that in safe
> code, then the implementation is at fault, no matter
> how brain-dead the program it was executing.

I don't disagree with your language.  I just don't understand what
leeway we're giving an implementation *in safe mode* that chooses to
*not* raise an exception for ((lambda (x) x) (values 1 2)).  (I'm not
trying to fight you or your wording.  I really don't understand.)  For
instance, is

((lambda (x) x) (values 1 2)) => 7

OK?  If so, how is that covered by your wording?

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