Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg1] Re: Proposed compromise on #68 "unspecified value(s)"

[leppie <xacc.ide@x>]

> No Scheme uses option B.  In addition to the objections you raise,
> there is the fact that if cons is known to be bound to the usual value,
> "(cons (x))" can be rejected by a compiler under options A and C, but
> might be valid under option B.

>From what I understand, no legal syntax maybe be rejected by the
compiler. The error must always be raised at runtime.

Maybe another exercise is to test say (cons 1) and (/ 1 0) or anything
else where the compiler could make such assumptions across the various
implementations.

Cheers

leppie

-- 
http://codeplex.com/IronScheme
http://xacc.wordpress.com

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports