[r6rs-discuss] Now, where were we?

[Vitaly Magerya]

On 23/02/2009, William D Clinger <will at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> To repair the R6RS, I would suggest using the semantics
> of R5RS 7.2 only for top-level programs.

Would that mean that interactive (i.e. incremental) definition of a library
would remain forbidden (even if an implementation could otherwise support it)?

How would you feel about also changing library semantics to match the semantics
of R5RS top level to allow that?

(If such a discussion already took place, I'd appreciate a pointer to it.)