[R6RS] draft statement on safety

[Michael Sperber]

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
> script.

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