Per Bothner scripsit:

> What is the intended meaning of the standard feature identifier 'r7rs?
> Does it mean every requirement in the R7RS specification must be
> implemented 100% according to spec?  Of course every implementation
> is likely to have bugs, and others may find some parts of the spec
> difficult or impossible to implement (for compatibility or
> technical reasons), so 100% conformance is unlikely.

Indeed.  I would say that it signals an intention to conform to R7RS
in principle.

> Specifically, suppose Kawa implements R7RS as far as we can.

Just so.  In that case, providing "r7rs" would be a Good Thing.

I modeled it on the ANSI_C define in C, which conforming
implementations set to 1.  Some non-conforming implementations
set it to 0, some didn't define it at all.

> I'd suggest some extra feature names:
>    full-continuations
>    full-tailcalls
> by analogy with full-unicode.

I expect we might have more feature flags in WG2.

--
By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall     cowan@ccil.org
have neither the Ring nor me!  --Frodo          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports