[r6rs-discuss] libraries are parameters (was set-car!)
owinebar at gmail.com
Wed Jun 27 13:38:21 EDT 2007
On 6/27/07, AndrevanTonder <andre at het.brown.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> > The draft may not require an implementation compile libraries
> > separately, but it does appear that whatever the semantics are,
> > separately or together must be equivalent.
> For portable libraries, I believe that is the intention, but note that
> the draft explicitly allows compiling separately or together to be
> /inequivalent/ when expand-time state is involved,
Can you point to where this statement is made?
so any libraries
> that use expand-time state in a way where this makes a difference
> to the correctness of compilation are by fiat non-portable.
> If you don't like that, consider the following:
> Libraries or programs that use runtime state are not portable.
> This is because, as for compilation, the draft allows a program or library
> use the values of bindings left over from yesterday's, or last year's,
> instantiations, without requiring reinitialization.
> Where can I find the statement you indented in the draft? Is there
a section giving conditions that guarantee portability of code, rather than
intermittently declaring when it isn't?
It looks like 5.96 contains even less verbage about portability and
compilation than 5.95.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the r6rs-discuss