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

[Michael Sperber]

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

> Mike Sperber asked:
>> Why is it not enough for the compiler to just issue a warning, and to
>> then abort at run time?  (Scheme 48 also does some degree of arity
>> checking at compile time, and offers a special mode to make warnings
>> abort the compiler.)
>
> According to the current draft R6RS, implementations
> are not allowed to "abort at run time"; they would
> have to raise a &violation exception, from which the
> program might conceivably recover in a portable way.

This isn't the issue of my question, which I should probably have
worded in the hypothetical.  (As I explained, the omission provision
that the program might abort at run time where currently a &violation
is required is mostly editorial oversight.)  Let me try again:

  Why would it not enough for the compiler to just issue a warning,
  and to then abort at run time?

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