[r6rs-discuss] Proposed features for small Scheme, part 1: a stake in the ground

[John Cowan]

Grant Rettke scripsit:

> Don't people want a minimalistic "small language"?

So it seems, but why?

We get a lot of "I use <whatever> all the time, it's handy, it's easy to
describe, so keep it out of the Standard".  This isn't rational standardization,
it's *nostalgie de la boue*, for a *boue* that never actually existed.

> You need this if you want to see the 2.5-specification model for R7RS of:
> 
> 1. Core language features: lambda, define, let

Even R5RS doesn't call "let" a core feature.  And it's all definable in
terms of lambda, after all.

> 2. Base language
>     - Features: letrec, let*, begin, syntax-rules
>     - Libraries: records and so on

Please see my post on why "being in a library" and "being optional for
an implementation" are orthogonal concepts.

-- 
I don't know half of you half as well           John Cowan
as I should like, and I like less than half     cowan at ccil.org
of you half as well as you deserve.             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --Bilbo