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

[William D Clinger]

Just in case some readers didn't understand the point of
Abdulaziz Ghuloum's "Usenet-like" example, let me add this
commentary:

    In one implementation, we found that:

    > (call-with-current-continuation
        (lambda (k) ((lambda () 12) (k 17))))
    17

That is the correct behavior.

    > (call-with-current-continuation
        (lambda (k) ((lambda () 12) (k 17))))
    Error: Wrong number of arguments to known procedure (let () 12)
    Entering debugger; type "?" for help.
    debug>

That, according to both the draft R6RS and to the
proposal of my formal comment, is incorrect behavior.

If the proposal contained in my formal comment were
adopted, then the incorrect behavior would not be
permitted; only the correct behavior would be allowed.

Will