Aaron W. Hsu scripsit: > My opinion here is that the WG2 should mandate that if a particular > feature is available in the implementation, then to be compliant, > it must provide that feature in at least a form compatible with the > standard module that provides that feature.
I don't see how you can possibly do that. What is the definition of a "feature"? Concretely: If you decide that your implementation should provide hash tables in a different form from the (optional) standard hash table module, who's to tell you no? You just claim that *your* hashtables are a different feature from standard hash tables, and presumably they do have some different sub-features or you'd just implement the standard. Standards don't apply to implementations that don't claim conformance to them. The most we can ask for is that if an implementation provides a module under a standard name, it provides the standard module, and not some slightly or hugely different module. And that applies to both WG1 and WG2 Scheme. -- What is the sound of Perl? Is it not the John Cowan sound of a [Ww]all that people have stopped [email protected] banging their head against? --Larry http://www.ccil.org/~cowan _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
