On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Aaron W. Hsu <[email protected]> wrote: > > I can't help but feel that the above implementation is woefully broken. Is > it conformant? Maybe you could make an argument for that, since the > standards (R5RS and R6RS) don't say anything about what happens when > (list? (values 1 2)) is evaluated. On the other hand, I hardly think that > we should be looking to this as a good example of anything. A tiny > implementation like Chibi could still be compliant without this mess (and > I do think it is a mess). It could still be *easily* compliant without > this mess. It's one thing to take liberties from the intentioned norms for > good reasons, but I fail to see good reasons for doing the above.
Easily? Without adding more than 10 lines or so of C? Patches welcome! :) -- Alex _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
