[r6rs-discuss] Interpreters need not apply?

[Thomas Lord]

Jon Wilson wrote:
> Hi Aziz,
>
> 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.

There's more, though.   What should "portable Scheme libraries" consist of
and should they be useful in applications that emphasize interpretation as
contrasted with compilation?

-t





>
> Regards,
> Jon
>
> _______________________________________________
> r6rs-discuss mailing list
> r6rs-discuss at lists.r6rs.org
> http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
>