[R6RS] early arity check

[Michael Sperber]

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

> Kent wrote:
>> During our meeting on the 7th, Will mentioned that the exception system
>> requires an early arity check.  Is the following from the
>> with-exception-handler description the offending text?
>> 
>>   \domain{\var{Handler} must be a
>>   procedure that accepts one argument.}  The {\cf
>>   with-exception-handler} procedure returns the result(s) of invoking
>>   \var{thunk}.  \var{Handler} is installed as the current
>>   exception handler for the dynamic extent (as determined by {\tt
>>     dynamic-wind}) of the invocation of \var{thunk}.
>>   
>>   \implresp The implementation must check the restrictions on
>>   \var{handler} to the extent performed by applying it as described,
>>   when it is called as a result of a call to {\cf raise} or {\cf
>>     raise-continuable}.
>
> That's one of them.  There are several others.  I cited
> the ones I have found so far in formal comments 146 and
> 176, but I doubt whether I have found them all.
>
>> I didn't find any other likely candidates, but it's possible that I'm
>> looking in the wrong place.  It's not clear to me, however, that this does
>> require an early arity check.
>
> It's clear to me (see tickets 146 and 176), and it was
> clear to the people who wrote the formal semantics, but it
> isn't entirely clear whether the early arity checks were
> actually intended by the project editor.

They weren't.  The intention was that "Implementation
responsibilities" override whatever is specified further up, which,
when "Implementation responsibilities" are present, only specify the
programmer's responsibilities.  In 5.92, I inadvertently omitted the
crucial wording in section 5.2.  It's there now, however.

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