[R6RS] draft statement on safety
sperber at informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
Wed Aug 9 13:12:30 EDT 2006
William D Clinger <will at ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> Mike wrote:
>> I'm still wondering what this statement says about the possible
>> behaviors of ((lambda (x) x) (values 1 2)). Since it won't be covered
>> by the semantics, it seems we're saying it must raise an exception.
> I don't see why you would draw that conclusion.
That's because I don't know what wording we should put where to say
that this sentence:
> its execution cannot go so badly wrong as to behave in ways that are
> inconsistent with the semantics described in this document, unless
> said execution first encounters some implementation restriction or
> other defect in the implementation of Scheme that is executing the
doesn't apply. It seems the safety statement itself isn't enough.
Putting something in the operational semantics is good, but some
natural-language statement somewhere is also needed, and I don't know
how to put it in a way that allows yours and Kent's semantics but
doesn't allow, for instance, crashes. I was hoping you or somebody
else could suggest something to help me out.
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
More information about the R6RS