[r6rs-discuss] Implementors' intentions concerning R6RS
cowan at ccil.org
Tue Oct 30 10:31:10 EDT 2007
Jon Wilson scripsit:
> Or to put it yet another way, you feel that you can safely ignore the
> opinion of those who disagree with you simply because they disagree with
> you? Danger, Will Robinson!
Hardly. If the issue for R6RS is whether R5RS Schemes will adopt it,
then the opinions of non-R5RS Scheme implementers aren't relevant,
> > R6RS intends to "allow programmers to create and distribute
> > substantial program and libraries (e.g. SRFIs) that run
> > without modification in a variety of Scheme implementations".
> > The "Scheme implementations" are those that adopt R6RS of
> > course.
> Slow down, cowboy! Actually, everyone check your watches. This is
> first time I've seen this, but I doubt it will be the last. Now, R6RS
> is "Scheme", and those who don't adopt R6RS are doing some other than
> implementing "Scheme". Only Chez, Scheme48, and PLT are now "Scheme
Plainly the sentence to which you object is merely meant to clarify
the sense of "Scheme implementations" in the preceding sentence.
For implementations that don't adopt R6RS, its promise of portability
can't possibly mean anything.
I recommend a little more close reading and a little less paranoia.
Híggledy-pìggledy / XML programmers John Cowan
Try to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes; http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is cowan at ccil.org
Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus.
More information about the r6rs-discuss