[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Allow compilers to reject obvious
Arthur A. Gleckler
arthur at zurich.csail.mit.edu
Mon Feb 26 15:39:45 EST 2007
On Feb 26, 2007, at 11:48 AM, Pascal Costanza wrote:
> By your accounting, I am in that list. I don't regard myself in
> that list, so I am sorry if I have given the wrong impression here.
> I'll try to clarify: Implementations should be given discretion to
> both run parts of programs even if other parts appear to be
> incorrect, as well as to completely reject running programs that
> are provably incorrect. I regard this a quality feature of an
> implementation, and it should be left to the "market" which
> approach "wins." It shouldn't be part of a language specification,
Just to be clear, do you mean "...as well as to completely reject
running [entire] programs that [contain parts that] are provably
incorrect?" That's the distinction I'm worried about.
I don't mind if this program can't run:
I just want to be able to test FACTORIAL in this program without
having to fix FOO:
(define (factorial n) (if (< n 2) 1 (* n (factorial (- n 1)))))
(define (foo) (factorial))
Of course, this is a contrived example. This problem only becomes
important when FOO is a large body of code, not just a one-liner.
More information about the r6rs-discuss