Re: Why would anyone want opacity?

[Matthias Blume <blume@CS.Princeton.EDU>]

From: "Guillermo J. Rozas" <gjr@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Why would anyone want opacity?
Date: Thu, 9 May 96 14:09:26 -0400

> I also like your suggestion of having an addendum to the RnRS with
> subprimitives that implementations can agree on, but whose semantics
> is not well-enough defined, specified or guaranteed to constrain the
> implementation of the semantics of the features in the reports proper.

Like, for example, this: ``Implementations are permitted, but not
required to implement a procedure KRPFHGH.  Arguments, result,
effects, and purpose of KRPFHGH, however, are left unspecified by this
report.''

In other words: what good would such an addendum do?

-Matthias