[R6RS] safe and unsafe; declarations

[William D Clinger]

When I read Kent's proposal, I thought it was a pretty
good fictional account of unsafe mode, if a little too
detailed for my taste.  When I got to the part about
the identifier-priority procedure, however, I thought
Kent was proposing to *require* implementations to
implement declarations as described in his proposal,
instead of just requiring implementations to *behave*
more or less as described by his proposal.

I was wrong, however, as Kent pointed out.  Just to
make sure I understand Kent's position:

Is it all right for an implementation to make the
identifier-priority procedure return 0 in all cases,
even if an implementation doesn't actually implement
an unsafe mode?

Is it all right for an implementation to make the
identifier-priority procedure return 3 in all cases,
even when macro-expanding within the scope of an
unsafe declaration?

Is it all right for an implementation to make the
identifier-priority procedure return a pseudo-random
integer in the range [0,3], no matter what declarations
the compiler is recognizing?

I assume the answer is "yes" to all three questions,
but I want to make sure I'm not missing something
here.

Will