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

[John Cowan]

Alex Shinn scripsit:

> > 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.

That's true, but if it does support them, it has to support them *this* way.
In particular, a given number might be unrepresentable in a Scheme, but
if representable at all, it must be representable as a source code literal.

> > 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.

This problem mostly bites when you use APPLY.

-- 
John Cowan  <address@hidden>  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht.
                --Albert Einstein