On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 1:59 PM Bradley Lucier <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am not aware of any SRFI or RNRS that talks about "safety" or about > faster code at the risk of crashing the system in the face of incorrect > code. > R6RS defines a library or top-level program as safe if it"cannot go so badly wrong as to crash [not a defined term] or to continue to execute while behaving in ways that are inconsistent with the semantics described in [R6RS]." In particular, all the standard R6RS libraries must be implemented safely, and all libraries and top-level programs must be implemented safely if they import only safe libraries. An implementation may provide unsafe libraries as well. (Earlier drafts of R6RS provided syntax for a user-written library to declare itself unsafe.) R7RS libraries are not required to be safe. SRFI 77 is a withdrawn predecessor to R6RS and provides for safe and unsafe arithmetic operations. SRFI 226 (control features) discusses safety.
