[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Allow compilers
to reject obvious violations
William D Clinger
will at ccs.neu.edu
Mon Feb 26 14:03:55 EST 2007
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.
John Cowan wrote:
> It is perhaps worth pointing out that a standard can have nothing to
> say about applications (or modes of applications) that don't claim
> conformance. To make gcc a conformant C compiler, you must say
> "gcc -ansi -pedantic -trigraphs", I believe.
Yes. It is perhaps worth pointing out that a standard
can have a non-binding appendix that explains how a
conformant implementation of R6RS might be invoked by
incanting "klepto -r6rs -silly -annoy-user-greatly"
and clicking "YES" when the dialog box asks "Are you
REALLY sure you want to do this?"
I am not saying this interface should be required of
all conforming implementations. If it were required
only of implementations that run on Unix, I would be
More information about the r6rs-discuss