[R6RS] safe and unsafe; declarations
William D Clinger
will at ccs.neu.edu
Sat Feb 25 11:14:22 EST 2006
Safe and Unsafe Modes: A Sermon on Safety
This note describes a tentative design, including a
declaration mechanism, but its main purpose is to provoke
At Snowbird, we discussed (and may have voted on) doing
away with all of the "is an error" situations of the R5RS
by requiring them to signal an error (in some way that we
have not yet specified). We have also discussed some kind
of "unsafe mode", in which implementations would not be
required to signal an error in situations for which they
are required to signal an error.
Those are symptoms of something. My diagnosis is
schizophrenic design. The etiology, I believe, is a
conflict of goals. I also believe that, with proper
treatment, the prognosis is good.
My purpose in this note is to warn against an overly
simplistic approach to this morass, and to make some
concrete suggestions on how we might proceed. First,
however, I think it is useful to examine the conflicting
goals, and to review both the de jure status quo (R5RS)
and de facto practice (actual programs and systems).
We want to make it easier for people to write Scheme
programs and to debug them.
We want to make it easier for people to write portable
programs in Scheme.
We want to tell people that Scheme is buzzword-compatible.
How Safe Mode Contributes to Goals
Reliable detection of programmed errors ("bugs") makes it
easier to debug and to write programs.
Reliable detection of violations of the language standard
makes it harder for people to write non-portable programs,
whether by accident or on purpose.
Reliable detection of bugs and violations makes it easier
for people to maintain a straight face when claiming that
Scheme is strongly typed.
How Unsafe Mode Contributes to Goals
Not checking for bugs makes it easier to write Scheme
programs that run fast or interact with unsafe legacy
code. In some cases, not checking for bugs may be the
best way to accomplish some task using Scheme instead
of using some language that would be much less safe.
Not checking for violations makes it easier for systems
to provide features that are absent from the language
standard, and to experiment with extensions that may
become standard in the future.
Not checking for bugs and violations makes it easier
to claim that Scheme has feature X "in practice", or
that Scheme programs run as fast as programs written
in language Y.
Status Quo (R5RS)
R5RS 1.3.1 requires every implementation to support all
features not marked as optional. Several major features
of the language, including all numbers outside of some
small subrange of the integers, are effectively optional.
"Implementations are free to omit optional features of
Scheme or to add extensions, provided the extensions
are not in conflict with the language reported here.
In particular, implementations must support portable
code by providing a syntactic mode that preempts no
lexical conventions of this report." The R5RS does
not say how a programmer can specify this portable
R5RS 1.3.2 defines four distinct phrases that describe
situations relevant to safety and portability, and uses
a few other phrases without defining them.
"An error is signalled" means that implementations must
detect and report the situation. The R5RS does not
explain how such situations are to be reported.
"An error" is a situation that implementations are
encouraged to detect and to report, but are not required
to detect and to report.
"May report a violation of an implementation restriction"
applies to situations that are themselves discouraged,
usually because the situation is caused by an incomplete
or flawed implementation, but that implementations are
encouraged but not required to detect and to report.
"Unspecified effect" and "undefined effect" describe
situations in which implementations are allowed, but
not required, to signal an error. It appears that the
only difference between an error and a situation with
unspecified or undefined effect is that implementations
are *not* encouraged to signal an error for situations
with unspecified or undefined effect.
"Unspecified" describes situations in which an expression
is required to evaluate to some value without signalling
an error, but the value itself is not specified by the
R5RS. Any dependence upon the value therefore becomes
a violation of portability.
A moderately complete list of all such situations that
are mentioned in the R5RS will be supplied as an appendix
to this note.
Status Quo (Actual Programs and Systems)
Most major implementations of Scheme implement all or
most features of the R5RS, but a few features are left
unimplemented by a few major implementations and by many
of the simpler implementations. Major features that are
sometimes left unimplemented, or implemented in a way
that violates the R5RS, include:
* proper tail recursion
* first class continuations
* complex numbers
* exact rational numbers
* exact integers
* inexact numbers
Most implementations also extend the R5RS syntax in some
way. Although implementations are required to provide a
mode that preempts no lexical conventions of the R5RS,
it is often inconvenient and sometimes impossible to enter
this required mode. Examples of syntactic extensions and
* case sensitivity
* square brackets as an alternative to parentheses
* extended syntax for symbols, e.g. ->vector, |aList|
* creative uses of the # character, e.g. #|...|#, #;
* non-standard syntax for vectors, e.g. #3(a b c)
To my knowledge, all implementations signal an error for
the few cases in which that is actually required by the
To my knowledge, no implementation signals an error for
every error mentioned or implied by the R5RS. Some of
the errors that are especially likely to go undetected
* square brackets as an alternative to parentheses
* extended syntax for symbols, e.g. ->vector, |aList|
* creative uses of the # character, e.g. #|...|#, #;
* non-standard syntax as input to the READ procedure
* mutating the value of a literal constant
* mutating the string returned by SYMBOL->STRING
* illegal arguments to standard procedures, e.g.
* (car '())
* (list-ref '(a b c d e f . g) 3)
* (memq 'c '(a b c d e f . g))
* (force 0) ; see note below
* (+ (delay (* 3 7)) 13) ; see note below
* (load "fib.fasl") ; not Scheme source code
* assigning to a variable that has not been defined
* multiple occurrences of the same identifier among
the formal parameters of a lambda expression, or
among the variables bound by various other constructs
* violation of the LETREC restriction
* use of _ where SYNTAX-RULES requires the macro name
* other extended patterns for SYNTAX-RULES
* shadowing a syntactic keyword whose meaning is needed
to determine whether some form is an internal definition
* reading from a closed port
Note: Although (force 0) and (+ (delay (* 3 7)) 13) are
errors, the R5RS explicitly says that, in some systems,
they may evaluate to 0 and 34, respectively.
The R5RS does not explicitly describe syntax errors as
errors, but this was probably just an oversight. Most
implementations signal an error when they detect a syntax
error. Examples of syntax errors that are especially
likely to go undetected include:
* unquoted empty list or vector used as an expression
* various extensions to the syntax of formal parameters
* (define x)
* (define ((curried-plus x) y) (+ x y))
* (begin) used as an expression
* syntax definitions other than at top level
All implementations impose implementation restrictions.
Some of the implementation restrictions whose violations
are especially likely to go undetected or unreported
* 36893488147419103232 ; silent coercion to inexact
* (expt 2 65) ; silent coercion to inexact
* 3/4 ; silent coercion to inexact
* (/ 3 4) ; silent coercion to inexact
* (max 0.0 1/10) ; loss of accuracy
To my knowledge, no implementation reliably detects all
uses of unspecified values.
Many implementations fail to detect situations that the R5RS
describes as having unspecified or undefined effect. These
* returning other than one value to a continuation that was
not created by CALL-WITH-VALUES
* using a captured continuation to enter or to exit the
before or after computations of a call to DYNAMIC-WIND
* (set! car "Audi") without defining car first
* nonstandard escape syntax in a string, e.g. "Hello!\n"
* opening a file for output when the file already exists
Summary of Current Practice and Opinion
All implementations that claim R5RS-conformance detect
and signal all errors they are required to signal.
Most will detect and report most (but not all) domain errors.
None detect and report all errors.
Most have implemented extensions that encourage programmers
to write errorful code.
Several things that are classified as errors by the R5RS
are likely to become correct and portable R6RS code.
Several other things that the R5RS classifies as errors are
nonetheless popular, and may become correct and portable code
in some future standard for Scheme.
A few compiled implementations provide some way for
programmers to generate code that omits run-time checks
needed for safety.
One programmer's error is another programmer's extension.
We should not start out by assuming that everything the
R5RS describes as an error ought to signal an error in
the R6RS. If we were to do that, we would break a lot
of working code. This code is not portable, of course,
but its errors are considered to be standard practice
within the implementations that provide the errorful
While the freedom to extend R5RS has given us valuable
experience with new features, including some that are
likely to find their way into R6RS, widespread but less
than universal support for such extensions has also been
a problem for portability.
The R5RS requirement for a standard syntactic mode has
not been effective. This too has created problems for
Several of the R6RS editors have been closely associated
with compiled systems that allow programmers to disable
run-time checks. In systems that offer this choice,
relatively few programs use the unsafe mode. We should
therefore try not to let the unsafe mode of these systems
exert undue influence on the R6RS.
Design of the so-called safe and unsafe modes interacts
strongly with the exception and condition systems, and
to some extent with the library mechanism.
In what follows, I will assume a hierarchy of condition
types, as in SRFI 35. For this note, I will assume the
following specific hierarchy of conditions, which is not
quite compatible with SRFI 35:
/ | |
/ | |
&nonstandard &defect &implementation-restriction
| | | |
&domain &result &immutable &type
The R6RS will refer to many condition types not shown above,
but the examples above should give you some idea.
We should extend or revise the R5RS classification of
situations that are relevant to safety or portability.
The word "error" evidently carries some baggage, so we
might want to avoid it. Here is one possible rephrasing
of the R5RS classification:
* "raises a ZYX exception" means that implementations
must detect the situation and raise an exception with a
condition of type ZYX.
* "should raise a ZYX exception" means that implementations
are encouraged, but not required, to detect the situation
and to raise an exception with a condition of type ZYX.
* "may raise a ZYX exception" means that implementations
are allowed, but not required or encouraged, to detect
the situation and to raise an exception with a condition
of type ZYX.
* "returns an unspecified value" means that the value
to be returned is not specified for the situation, but
implementations are not allowed to raise an exception.
If an implementation is unable to perform an action or
return a value specified by the R6RS, then it may raise
an &implementation-restriction exception.
We should use some such classification to re-classify
every situation that the R5RS describes as signalling
an error, an error, a violation of an implementation
restriction, having unspecified or undefined effect,
or yielding an unspecified value. We should also
classify some situations that the R5RS overlooked,
such as syntax errors.
We should specify every situation in which a conforming
implementation of Scheme is required to raise an exception,
and should also identify situations in which a conforming
implementation is allowed to raise an exception. We should
also specify a condition type for the condition that is to
be raised in each identified situation. Assuming a design
similar to SRFI 35, implementations would then be free to
use any sub-condition-type of the specified condition, and
to combine them with arbitrarily many other condition
We should insist that the default exception handlers
report certain kinds of exceptions. Programmers will
be able to override the default handlers using some
mechanism that resembles that of SRFI 34.
The R6RS should also allow implementations to provide ways
for programmers to declare that certain kinds of exceptions
should be handled in implementation-dependent ways.
For example, a programmer might use one of these
implementation-specific declarations to declare that
#3(a b c) should be treated as #(a b c) when read by
the READ procedure.
For another example, a programmer might use one of these
implementation-specific declarations to declare that the
operations exported from a standard fixnum library may
use an exception handler that does not report &domain
conditions. These nonstandard exception handlers would
be free to handle exceptions in ways that cannot even
be expressed in R6RS Scheme, for example by returning
an incorrect answer or incurring a segmentation fault.
These implementation-specific declarations are likely
to have static rather than dynamic scope. This can
be explained in terms of installing a dynamic handler
on entry to some specific procedures, and un-installing
that handler around all calls out of those procedures.
(This is fiction, because implementations are unlikely
to implement it this way, but that doesn't matter.)
One of the guiding principles of the most recent draft
of the R6RS status report says we will provide some
standard way to declare whether such safety checks are
desired. This can be done by extending the library
mechanism to allow such declarations, and by devising
a syntax for such declarations that has some portable
semantics while leaving room for implementations to
interpret the details as they see fit.
Such declarations could also be allowed to appear at the
head of any body that permits internal definitions.
This section is extremely tentative because of interactions
with library syntax. For now, let us suppose that the
<body> syntax of SRFI 83 were changed to
<body> = <impexp-form>* <declaration>* <comdef-form>*
and that the <body> syntax of R5RS were changed to
<body> --> <declaration>* <definition>* <sequence>
The variable-specific declarations of a library <body>
may refer to the variables imported by the library as
well as to variables defined by the library.
The variable-specific declarations of an R5RS <body>
may refer only to the variables bound by the binding
construct that immediately surrounds the <body>.
The syntax of a declaration might be
<declaration> --> (declare <declarespec>*)
<declarespec> --> unsafe | (safety <priority>)
| fast | (fast <priority>)
| small | (small <priority>)
| debug | (debug <priority>)
| (inline <variable>*)
| (type <typespec> <variable>*)
<priority> --> 0 | 1 | 2 | 3
<typespec> --> #t
| number? | complex? | real? | rational? | integer?
| exact? | inexact? | fixnum? | flonum?
| (< _ <bound>) | (< <bound> _) | (< <bound> _ <bound>)
| (<= _ <bound>) | (<= <bound> _) | (<= <bound> _ <bound>)
| boolean? | symbol? | null? | pair? | list?
| char? | string? | vector?
| input-port? | output-port?
| (procedure? <typespec>)
| (procedure? <typespec> (<typespec>*))
| (and <typespec>*)
<bound> --> <number> | <variable>
<rtd> --> <variable> ; its value must be a record-type-descriptor
The scope of a declaration is the library in which it
appears, or the expression that immediately surrounds
the <body> at whose head it appears.
Implementations are always allowed to ignore declarations.
Implementations are also allowed to interpret declarations
by interpreting a <declarespec> as follows.
The safety, fast, small, and debug declarations provide
hints to the implementation concerning the programmers'
priorities with respect to safety, speed, space, and
debugging. Priority 3 is the highest priority.
Priority 0 means the quality is not a priority at all.
Except for safety, implementations are allowed to
interpret these priorities as they wish, and may use
whatever default priorities they wish.
For safety, a priority of 1 or higher implies the normal
semantics as specified in the R6RS. An implementation's
default priority for safety must be 1 or greater, which
implies that all exceptions mentioned in the R6RS will
be detected, raised, and handled in the normal way. A
(safety 0) declaration is equivalent to an unsafe
An unsafe declaration gives implementations permission
to use arbitrarily perverse exception handlers when
evaluating expressions within the scope of the declaration.
In particular, an unsafe declaration gives implementations
permission to use exception handlers that ignore exceptions
and continue the computation with an incorrect result,
or to use exception handlers that terminate the computation
in an unpleasant fashion.
An inline declaration names variables that, according to the
programmers who wrote the declaration, are never assigned.
Implementations may use inline declarations to raise
an &immutable exception if one of the variables is assigned,
to generate faster or smaller code, or to make the program
easier to debug, depending upon the priorities for safety,
fast, small, and debug. Implementations are permitted
to trust an inline declaration even if safety is nonzero.
Note: Inside a library whose language is scheme://r6rs,
all R6RS procedures whose names are not shadowed by a
definition of the same name within the library can be
inlined, even in the absence of inline declarations.
If the variables exported by a library are immutable
outside the library, then the same holds true for
variables imported from other libraries. Thus the
inline declaration serves primarily as a hint that
inlining the named variables is, in the programmer's
opinion, a good idea, and as a request that the
programmer be informed if any of the named variables
A type declaration describes the values of variables.
The #t <typespec> provides no information about the
value. A <typespec> that names a unary predicate of
the R6RS asserts that predicate to be true of all the
variables named in the type declaration; similarly
for the fixnum? and flonum? predicates.
Note: A fixnum? declaration is not strong enough to
allow implementations to avoid checking for overflow
on arithmetic operations that involve fixnum. If a
programmer wishes to omit overflow checking, then
the fixnum-specific operations of SRFI 77 should be
used in addition to or instead of a declaration.
A <typespec> that names a variable <rtd> asserts that
the value of <rtd> is a record-type-descriptor, and
asserts that (record-predicate <rtd>) is true of all
the variables to which the type declaration applies.
A <typespec> that uses < or <= to bound an underscore
asserts that all of the variables that act as bounds
are rational, that all of the variables to which the
type declaration applies are rational, and that the
bounds hold when any of the variables to which the type
declaration applies are substituted for the underscore.
A <typespec> of the form (procedure? <typespec0>)
asserts that the variables to which the declaration
applies have procedures as values, and that the values
those procedures return are described by <typespec0>.
A <typespec> of the form
(procedure? <typespec0> (<typespec1> ... <typespecN>))
asserts (procedure? <typespec0>), and also asserts
that the procedures take N arguments, that they should
not be given fewer than N nor more than N arguments,
and that the procedures' arguments should always
satisfy <typespec1> through <typespecN>.
A <typespec> of the form (and <typespec>*) asserts
that all of the variables to which the declaration
applies are described by all of the <typespec>*.
Implementations may use type declarations to raise
a &type exception if one of the type declarations is
violated, to generate faster or smaller code, or to
improve debugging, depending upon the priorities for
safety, fast, small, and debug. Implementations are
*not* permitted to trust a type declaration unless
safety is 0 (unsafe).
Note: The list? and extended procedure? declarations
are unlikely to be enforced, even if safety is a high
priority, because those declarations cannot be checked
in constant time. Furthermore a wrapped procedure
would not have the same semantics with respect to eq?
as the original.
The &violation and &defect condition types may correspond
to what Mike has been calling a &surprise or &bug. I prefer
the names in this note.
SRFI 83 anticipates the possibility of a <language> other
than "scheme://r6rs", but "it is expected that <body> will
follow Scheme's lexical conventions, so that read can
process any library declaration." This appears to imply
that it will be impossible to write a library definition
that contains non-conforming syntax such as #3(a b c).
(I don't have a problem with that.)
SRFI 83 doesn't seem to define <X-set>. I'm assuming that
<X-set> is the same as <import-set>.
It is not at all clear where declarations should go in the
SRFI 83 doesn't say whether exported variables can be
assigned outside of the library code.
Allowing macros to expand into declarations is desirable,
but is not essential and might cause some problems for
macro expansion of LET* and other constructs.
Appendix: List of R5RS Situations
This appendix is still under construction, and will be
More information about the R6RS