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

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

leppie scripsit:

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

As I noted on #scheme, this is true in R6RS or in CL, but R5RS and R7RS
have no such restriction: a compiler is free to reject a program that it
knows is in error, because there is no guarantee that the implementation
will signal an error or that the program will be able to catch it.

In any case, however, rather than signaling a compile-time error, a
compiler can transform a call of (cons (foo)) into a call on the
error procedure.

-- 
I Hope, Sir, that we are not                    John Cowan
mutually Un-friended by this                    cowan@x
Difference which hath happened                  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
betwixt us.     --Thomas Fuller, Appeal to Injured Innocence

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