On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Lynn Winebarger wrote: > The draft may not require an implementation compile libraries > separately, but it does appear that whatever the semantics are, compiling > separately or together must be equivalent.
For portable libraries, I believe that is the intention, but note that the draft explicitly allows compiling separately or together to be /inequivalent/ when expand-time state is involved, so any libraries that use expand-time state in a way where this makes a difference to the correctness of compilation are by fiat non-portable. If you don't like that, consider the following: Libraries or programs that use runtime state are not portable. This is because, as for compilation, the draft allows a program or library to use the values of bindings left over from yesterday's, or last year's, instantiations, without requiring reinitialization. Andre _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
