Aaron W. Hsu scripsit:

> My opinion here is that the WG2 should mandate that if a particular
> feature is available in the implementation, then to be compliant,
> it must provide that feature in at least a form compatible with the
> standard module that provides that feature.

I don't see how you can possibly do that.  What is the definition of a
"feature"?  Concretely: If you decide that your implementation should
provide hash tables in a different form from the (optional) standard hash
table module, who's to tell you no?  You just claim that *your* hashtables
are a different feature from standard hash tables, and presumably they do
have some different sub-features or you'd just implement the standard.
Standards don't apply to implementations that don't claim conformance
to them.

The most we can ask for is that if an implementation provides a module
under a standard name, it provides the standard module, and not some
slightly or hugely different module.  And that applies to both WG1 and
WG2 Scheme.

--
What is the sound of Perl?  Is it not the       John Cowan
sound of a [Ww]all that people have stopped     cowan@ccil.org
banging their head against?  --Larry            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