[r6rs-discuss] Interpreters need not apply?

[Jon Wilson]

Hi Ludovic,

Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> One might argue that an option for interpreters would be to offer the
> possibility to toggle between "lazy compilation/evaluation" (as they
> currently do) and the compiler-like, split-phase approach that is
> mandated by R6RS: the latter could be used during the program
> development phase, and the former could be used when using the program
> in "production" systems.  However, this effectively requires
> implementors of interpreters to provide...  a compiler.
>   
Wouldn't this then make the implementation non-R6RS conforming?  If R6RS 
mandates something, and an implementation does it differently, then it 
is breaking the standard.  It seems that the standard ought to be 
written in such a way that people intending to write and use practical 
implementations in practical applications will not have a strong desire 
or need to depart from the standard's mandates.  In short, I agree that 
the state of affairs is as you describe, and I think that this is a Bad 
Thing.
Regards,
Jon