[r6rs-discuss] Re: r6rs-discuss Digest, Vol 6, Issue 39
matthias at ccs.neu.edu
Sun Feb 25 14:32:53 EST 2007
On Feb 25, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Will Clinger wrote:
> Requiring compiler writers to write
> this extra code, instead of allowing them to reject
> programs that violate the basic requirements of the
> language, is a silly waste of implementors' time.
I consider it a silly waste of time for (hopefully) many more Scheme
programmers than compiler writers to having to guess why a program
was rejected by a compiler that is supposedly R6RS conforming. If the
rules are spelled out in one place and in an explicit manner, a
compiler (writer) can refer programmers there and the programmer can
work around the restrictions.
I do like your classification scheme for R6R Scheme.
More information about the r6rs-discuss