On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:18 AM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: > Michele La Monaca scripsit:
> To be fair, it is also the way of the great majority of Scheme > implementations. And most Scheme systems are quite strict, simply > because it's easier to build lax code on top of strict code than the > other way around. Given Scheme's extreme extensibility of both syntax > and procedures, this is perfectly reasonable: if you want lax behavior, > import a lax library instead of the base (strict) library. Hi John, I think it's not a matter of strict/laxness but rather of semantic. (substring1 "foo" 0 10) --> crash, exception, whatever (substring2 "foo" 0 10) --> "foo" >From what I understand, thanks to the realm of the "undefined behavior", substring1 and substring2 are both standard compliant, even if they have quite a different semantic. So, to me the real question is: which kind of semantic gives the user more power? You know my answer and from this discussion I know the answer of veteran schemers. I think we'll never agree but of course this is not a problem. Anyway, thanks for your comments, John, I found them very sound and constructive. Regards, Michele _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
