[r6rs-discuss] Re: Interpreters need not apply?

[William D Clinger]

I'm still not speaking for the editors, and haven't
checked lately to see whether they're still speaking
to me...

Aubrey Jaffer quoting me:
>  | The language described by the draft R6RS cannot be
>  | implemented by a pure interpreter (*).  Lexical checking,
>  | macro expansion, syntax checking, bound-variable checking,
>  | and immutability checks are required before any part of a
>  | program can begin its execution.
>
> If what you write is true, then SCM will stay at R5RS.  To be sure I
> understand, can the language described by R4RS and R5RS be implemented
> by a "pure interpreter"?

Yes.  (To acknowledge John Cowan's point, the
languages described by R4RS and R5RS can be
implemented by a form-at-a-time pure interpreter.
The language described by the draft R6RS cannot.)

Will