[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Standard Feature Identifiers are too low-level
Andy Wingo scripsit:
> What purpose does it serve? If you are cond-expanding in a module, you
> already know that you have r7rs.
You might have R8RS. More to the point, a non-conformant implementation
might have R7RS-format modules and cond-expand, but should not provide
the r7rs feature. (There is no way to enforce this, of course; standards
can't control the behavior of implementations that don't claim conformance
Compare the __STDC__ and __STDC_VERSION__ macros in ISO C. If they are
defined with the correct values, the implementation conforms to ISO C
(of a particular version). A non-conformant implementation could define
them regardless, but *it would be wrong*.
I marvel at the creature: so secret and John Cowan
so sly as he is, to come sporting in the pool cowan@x
before our very window. Does he think that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Men sleep without watch all night?
Scheme-reports mailing list