[r6rs-discuss] Interpreters need not apply?

[Abdulaziz Ghuloum]

On Mar 7, 2007, at 6:24 PM, Jon Wilson wrote:

> 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?

Not necessarily.  Implementations can provide implementation-specific  
and nonstandard features.  Such features may be completely missing  
from the report (gui, threads, sockets, etc.) or even contradict the  
report (lazy evaluation, static typing, no macros by default).  An  
implementation is R6RS-conforming as long as there is some way of  
getting the R6RS-required features.

Aziz,,,