[r6rs-discuss] Interpreters need not apply?
j85wilson at fastmail.fm
Wed Mar 7 18:51:13 EST 2007
Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote:
>> Wouldn't this then make the implementation non-R6RS conforming?
> Not necessarily. Implementations can provide implementation-specific
> and nonstandard features. Such features may be completely missing
> from the report (gui, threads, sockets, etc.) or even contradict the
> report (lazy evaluation, static typing, no macros by default). An
> implementation is R6RS-conforming as long as there is some way of
> getting the R6RS-required features.
Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
More information about the r6rs-discuss