[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Scheme-reports] *TELUS Detected Spam*Re: [r6rs-discuss] returning back to pattern matching

Aaron W. Hsu scripsit:

> My opinion here is that the WG2 should mandate that if a particular
> feature is available in the implementation, then to be compliant,
> it must provide that feature in at least a form compatible with the
> standard module that provides that feature.

I don't see how you can possibly do that.  What is the definition of a
"feature"?  Concretely: If you decide that your implementation should
provide hash tables in a different form from the (optional) standard hash
table module, who's to tell you no?  You just claim that *your* hashtables
are a different feature from standard hash tables, and presumably they do
have some different sub-features or you'd just implement the standard.
Standards don't apply to implementations that don't claim conformance
to them.

The most we can ask for is that if an implementation provides a module
under a standard name, it provides the standard module, and not some
slightly or hugely different module.  And that applies to both WG1 and
WG2 Scheme.

What is the sound of Perl?  Is it not the       John Cowan
sound of a [Ww]all that people have stopped     cowan@x
banging their head against?  --Larry            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

Scheme-reports mailing list