On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Lynn Winebarger wrote: > On 6/27/07, AndrevanTonder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Lynn Winebarger wrote: >> >> > Is there >> > a section giving conditions that guarantee portability of code, rather than >> > intermittently declaring when it isn't? >> >> The note at the end of 7.2 has a very limited guarantee. > > > If you mean: > > Thus, a library is portable only when it references identifiers in phases > consistent with the declared levels ....
No, I was referring to the footnote referring to avoidance of the FOR form, but on a second reading, I now notice that it does not actually address portability. Sorry about the confusion. > then it needs to be rewritten. As it stands it provides no guarantee of > portability, only a warning of properties that are necessary for portability > but not necessarily sufficient. I agree. The sentence states a necessary condition as if it were sufficient, which is obviously wrong. (By the way, I am not an editor.) Regards Andre _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
