Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?

[Alex Shinn]

On Dec 28, 2007 11:47 AM, John Cowan <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> There is letrec as letrec*,

This is a perfectly legal extension - the exact R5RS text
says that "it is an error" to refer to one of the other variables.
So if you do that demons might fly out of your nose, or it may
magically behave like letrec*.  The R6RS text is more precise
and explicitly requires a distinction, but Chicken is not R6RS.

> no read/write invariance for numbers,

For inexact numbers, which are inexact, and R5RS
makes no claims about how inexact , and they needn't
be supported at all.

> no bignum literals in the compiler even with the numeric egg.

A fully conformant implementation doesn't need to support
bignums at all.

> There is also the limit on passed arguments, but I don't know if
> that still applies in the new apply-hack world.

Where does R5RS say proceures must support an unlimited
number of arguments?  That's just a standard compiler limitation -
if nothing else you're always limited by available memory.  It
doesn't have anything to do with standards conformance.

I don't mean to nitpick, but there are plenty of other Schemes
that call themselves R5RS with similar extensions.

-- 
Alex