Michele La Monaca scripsit: > I never read them (I promise I'll do, at least R5RS) but I was kind of > suspecting that no standard would ever tell you "if the input is such > or such... then crash!".
Well, no. But certainly the C and C++ standards, for example, give *permission* to crash by using the phrase "undefined behavior". In R6RS, it's the opposite story: essentially all behaviors are defined, either to produce a certain result or to raise an exception of a certain type, both of which the user can rely on. > The way it is, is the chicken way not the scheme way. 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. -- John Cowan [email protected] http://ccil.org/~cowan Half the lies they tell about me are true. --Tallulah Bankhead, American actress _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
