Re: [Scheme-reports] Some comments after reading the r7rs public draft

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Ray Dillinger <bear@x> wrote:
>
> Due to the "vagueness," I have (since R3RS at least)
> regarded streams relying on delayed functions as a bit
> of magic that works, not because the implementors are
> following the spec, but rather because implementors are
> flatly refusing to follow a spec which permits a
> completely useless result in such a way as to actually
> *produce* a completely useless result.
>
> If you claim that the behavior people have been
> implementing is something that the spec has required
> all along, I think you are wrong.  If you claim that
> it is something the spec has permitted and ought to
> have required all along, I think you are right.

I allow that "primitive procedures like cdr and +" is
overly vague, but that no implementation would
ever apply this extension in such a way that a
portable program would break - i.e. I think the "spirit"
of the extension is perfectly clear even if the
wording is not.

I've filed ticket #399 to clarify the wording.

-- 
Alex

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