On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 8:17 PM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Arthur A. Gleckler scripsit: > > > Still, it would be a disservice to provide it in an implementation that > > didn't support tail recursion, for example, since that's a basic feature > > of the language and many programs won't work without it. It would be > > better to agree on a feature identifier that such languages can support. > > This can be outside the spec, for example in an SRFI. > > Mumble. The point is to specify an intent to conform to R7RS > specifically, as opposed to other Scheme standards. There is no > standard that doesn't require tail recursion, and there have always > been implementations (well, since 1989 at least) that don't support it > in the general case. > Specifying an intent doesn't help someone who is trying to make his program portable if the implementation doesn't actually implement R7RS.
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
