[r6rs-discuss] Spec Size and Numeric Tower

From: Neil Jerram <neil>
Date: Thu Sep 28 14:10:51 2006

"Carl Eastlund" <cce_at_ccs.neu.edu> writes:

>> That may well be true. But surely the point of a standard is that
>> someone can write a Scheme program that does use many of the described
>> features, and then know that this program will run on any
>> implementation that says it is R6RS compliant?
>
> Your two statements are at odds with each other. How can developers
> rely on R6RS compliance of implementations, if the specification is
> complex enough that many implementations only partially comply?

Developers don't need "many" or a majority of implementations to
comply fully, to make it worthwhile writing R6RS programs; they just
need a few implementations that are well known enough, and I'd guess
that most of the well known general purpose implementations will in
fact comply. Is there any evidence to the contrary? (I.e., I guess,
well known implementation maintainers stating that they plan not to
comply with R6RS as currently drafted?)

Regards,
     Neil
Received on Thu Sep 28 2006 - 14:10:32 UTC