Per Bothner scripsit: > What is the intended meaning of the standard feature identifier 'r7rs? > Does it mean every requirement in the R7RS specification must be > implemented 100% according to spec? Of course every implementation > is likely to have bugs, and others may find some parts of the spec > difficult or impossible to implement (for compatibility or > technical reasons), so 100% conformance is unlikely.
Indeed. I would say that it signals an intention to conform to R7RS in principle. > Specifically, suppose Kawa implements R7RS as far as we can. Just so. In that case, providing "r7rs" would be a Good Thing. I modeled it on the ANSI_C define in C, which conforming implementations set to 1. Some non-conforming implementations set it to 0, some didn't define it at all. > I'd suggest some extra feature names: > full-continuations > full-tailcalls > by analogy with full-unicode. I expect we might have more feature flags in WG2. -- By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall [email protected] have neither the Ring nor me! --Frodo http://www.ccil.org/~cowan _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
