lord at emf.net
Mon Mar 23 18:48:11 EDT 2009
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 10:37 -0400, R. Kent Dybvig wrote:
> > Should I add an erratum for this?
> Probably. With the present wording, an implementation could probably
> justify going either way,
The freedom of an implementation to go either
way on that point is a good reflection of the
fact that neither way is obviously better than
the other *and* it is easy for programs to not
rely on one way or the other.
Changing the language to force one choice is
just arbitrary. It adds an implementation burden.
It punts on the question of which choice is better.
"Unspecified" seems like the accurate spec.
> since checking argument counts and types might
> or might not be considered the responsibility of the procedure.
> r6rs-discuss mailing list
> r6rs-discuss at lists.r6rs.org
More information about the r6rs-discuss