[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Allow compilers to reject obvious violations

[William D Clinger]

I am posting this as an individual member of the Scheme
community.  I am not speaking for the R6RS editors, and
this message should not be confused with the editors'
eventual formal response.

Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>   2. Naturally I don't reject type systems per se but I think that a serious
>      language definition shouldn't introduce such systems without specifying
>      them. Otherwise a language/implementation will appear whimsical to
>      programmers.

The current draft already mandates hundreds of runtime
exceptions whose whimsical purpose is to make programs
that violate the requirements of the R6RS less likely
to run to completion.  Why should that kind of whimsy
be limited to run time?

Will