[Larceny-users] Ticket 638

[Abdulaziz Ghuloum]

On Apr 21, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Andre van Tonder wrote:

> The fact that this code does not work in Larceny shows
> that the code is not R6RS-compliant.

Really?  When did that happen?

> That it works in PLT and Ikarus just shows that their
> implementors chose not to worrry about imposing R6RS
> portability for reasons of their own.
>
>           [quote from Andre's README file]

Of course no one needs to worry about your notes
(which have nothing to do with what's in R6RS).

> The fact that some implementations do not impose this
> restriction is irrelevant.

But you just made this restriction up!  Why would any
implementor impose something you made up?

> What is relevant is that R6RS allows and in fact
> encourages implementations (present or future) to
> check phases of references,

The quote I have from R6RS says:

     When an identifier appears as an expression in a
     phase that is inconsistent with the identifier’s
     level, then an implementation may raise an exception
     either at expand time or run time, or it may allow
     the reference.

Note: it may, or may.  There are no musts or shoulds
or any of that.  Where did you get the "encourages"
part from?

Aziz,,,