[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More on Full Specification
Presumably the motivation for this was to allow implementation
freedom, so why only stop half-way?
It would sure be nice if we could get an implicit PCALL without causing any
damage, but going the rest of the way will invalidate currently valid code.
I think you missed the point -- I wasn't arguing for parallel semantics.
The question was whether or not PERMUTE was overspecified, which I claim
only goes half-way even in the sequential case.
I wonder how many current implementations permute the arguments in
different ways depending on context? Seems useful to me ... and fully
within the motivation for underspecification in the first place.
It is useful. My current compiler project uses it.
Are you aware then that you are not in conformance with the report?
... It seems unreasonable to insist that all Scheme programmers must
follow Multilisp style standards if their code is to be portable, and
doubly so when we aren't providing any synchronization constructs.
I'm inclined to agree, but we're already doing that to some extent, by
requiring that portable code not depend on order-of-sequential-evaluation
of arguments. So you see it's really a matter of degree.