Re: [Chicken-users] R6RS Rant

[Sunnan]

Kon Lovett wrote:
> If I may be so bold, it seems the greatest issue is the "library" 
> arena. Drop it. Define a core only. There is so many similar 
> extensions of R5RS in std use that an agreeable R6RS would not be a 
> rewrite of R5RS. (BTW, I think the full numeric tower & extended 
> characters/strings should be core. Doesn't mean a compiler can't be 
> told to not use them.)

What I miss most from R5RS is the user-visible way to include and/or 
define libraries. Today I use chicken and write (require-extension 
extension-names ...) but I'd love for this to be the same across most 
Schemes.

Sunnan