I'm sorry; those are reasons not to approve r6rs. There are many
things, it seems to me, which don't belong in the standard, but which
should be in any good Scheme system.
Are you saying that if X should not be in the standard, then it is wrong
for Chicken Scheme to implement X? Suppose r6rs had mandated the
Chicken Scheme FFI; would you begin lobbying for its removal from
Chicken Scheme?
Thomas
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 08:54 +0900, Ivan Raikov wrote:
There are many good reasons not to support R6RS. You might want to read
them here:
http://www.r6rs.org/ratification/results.html
Thomas Bushnell BSG <address@hidden> writes:
So the extraordinary compiler Stalin is sliding into obscurity, because
it remains stuck at r4rs, with nobody having done anything to bring it
up-to-date.
Chicken Scheme can be talked into being r5rs, which is great, though
it's not obvious sometimes what needs to be done.
But r6rs has been out a while. I think we should create a "punchlist"
of to-do items, with the goal being to get r6rs compliance in the
not-too-distant future. With the version 4 macro system in place, this
shouldn't be too far off.
And yet, we have a quote from Felix Winkelmann from a couple years ago
saying it will never happen, and "R6RS must die".
Is this still the rule?
_______________________________________________
Chicken-hackers mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers