[gambit-list] anyone get schelog working with gambit-c?

Bradley Lucier lucier at math.purdue.edu
Thu Aug 23 20:12:27 EDT 2007


On Aug 23, 2007, at 6:26 PM, |/|/ Bendick wrote:

> I understand the importance of different implementations of the same
> language having the same semantics, but are there any reasons why it
> would be a bad thing to create a language , suspiciously similar to
> scheme, where () is self evaluating?

I don't care one way or the other whether () is self-evaluating in  
Scheme.

I don't *particularly* care whether the evaluation order of arguments  
in a function application is unspecified or left-to-right. [1]

Gambit follows the standard in both cases; I guess I've been  
debugging other people's nonstandard, broken code on Gambit for  
enough years now that I don't appreciate code that relies on the  
"helpful" language extensions by some implementations of self- 
evaluating () and fixed left-to-right argument evaluations.

By the way, R5.97RS keeps both of these R5RS rules.

Brad

[1] The current rule that the order can be different for each  
(dynamic) function application appeals to me somewhat for its beauty,  
and I also find it interesting that at one time each time you rebuilt  
Gambit from Scheme sources the compiler or interpreter (I don't  
remember which) switched from left-to-right to right-to-left  
evaluation of arguments in a function application; this may still be  
true.




More information about the Gambit-list mailing list