David Van Horn
dvanhorn at ccs.neu.edu
Mon Mar 23 19:34:14 EDT 2009
Thomas Lord wrote:
> 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.
(string->number string) procedure
(string->number string radix) procedure
It is clear that the intention was that string->number could only be
applied either to a string or to string and an exact integer that is
either 2, 8, 10, or 16---both from the text of the report and from the
recent emails by the editors.
If this is unspecified, the word "must" would mean very little in the
An erratum clarifying the note seems appropriate.
More information about the r6rs-discuss