[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] Deviations from the Standard

From: Sam Varner
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Deviations from the Standard
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:31:06 -0400

Could someone update the docs?
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 19:01 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 20:24 -0400, Sam Varner wrote:
> > Stage 2 of my nit-picking tour through the Chicken docs;)
> > 
> > In "Deviations from the standard"
> > could
> > someone provide some rationale for the deviations?  It's not a big deal
> > to me if Chicken doesn't follow R5RS to the letter, I'd just like to
> > know the reasons.  The numeric tower issue is explained in the FAQ, but
> > it's not clear if the others are design decisions, compromises, or bugs.
> > Thanks.
> I posted recently on chicken-hackers that most of these are not really
> deviations, but here is a brief summary.
> There are really only four deviations (and maybe fewer, depending on
> interpretational issues):
> The parameter limitation, I believe, derives from the Scheme->C
> translation technique, and reflects limitations in the underlying C as
> well as space usage constraints.  Fixing it would be a pain for little
> benefit.
> The numeric tower's only problems are that rationalize is not
> implemented, and numerator/denominator only work for integers.  Fixing
> this is easy, and it seems not to have been done because of a
> misunderstanding about what r5rs expects of rationals.
> Flonum externalization is inconsistent probably because the C library
> routines are being used.
> Macro visibility in eval is a pain to sort out b/c the syntax
> environment isn't kept separate as you might expect.
> The other ones are not deviations from the standard at all, except
> char-ready? which would be a deviation, but afaict, the documented
> problem does not actually exist, on Linux at any rate.
> Thomas

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]