On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Nala Ginrut <nalagin...@gmail.com> wrote: > well, I see. I haven't used Stalin before, so I guess the generated C code > must be compiled without any Gcc extension?
I think he's making a joke that Richard Stallman is always pedantic, so the -pedantic flag is redundant. > @Noah: Anyway, will you add r5rs support to it? I found Stalin doesn't > provide that. I would love to. That is far in the future, though - my current goal is to type-check Tree-IL. I have been working on that, and I think I am close to having something ready to show, although not quite there. Expect an email about the wip-compiler branch in the next few days. Noah > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:00 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> >> Nala Ginrut <nalagin...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > -pedantic? Sorry, but I'm afraid I didn't see it in Noah's >> > description. >> > >> > Anyone give me some context? >> >> gcc has an option -pedantic for strict standard adherence. >> >> -- >> David Kastrup > >
