On 23 Sep 2024, at 12:13, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <marc.nie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> R7RS Large will probably make weaknesses in collection like this >> implementation-specified, so conforming impls will have to document if they >> can’t collect symbols. > > Has this been discussed already? <https://codeberg.org/scheme/r7rs/issues/105> > Firstly, it doesn't make sense to use keys without locations, as I tried to > explain. Secondly, SRFI 254 does not ban them but leaves it open. > > It is like saying strings are not important for, say, "+". R7RS leaves it > open what happens when you evaluate (+ 1 "zwei"). The difference between that case and this is that R7RS also clearly states a set of values for which the result of + is not ‘left open’. > I still fail to understand in what sense it is not strong enough. It lists > types that are guaranteed to denote locations or sequences of locations. > What else would be needed? The list is non-exhaustive. It says ‘such as’. Clearly, there are ‘objects’ which do not denote locations. Daphne
