[r6rs-discuss] Interpreters need not apply?

From: Abdulaziz Ghuloum <aghuloum>
Date: Wed Mar 7 03:40:42 2007

On Mar 7, 2007, at 2:59 AM, Thomas Lord wrote:

> Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote:
>>
>> Aubrey, what's this class of "pure interpreters" that you're
>> concerned about? How do they semantically differ from say petite,
>> csi, gsi, mzscheme, guile, gosh, rscheme, etc?
>
> Doesn't adding the word "semantically" to that question rather miss
> the point?

How could I miss a point when asking a question? The purpose of my
question was to enquire, not to miss or make a point. If you think
the question was invalid, then please explain.


> Did anyone deny that the current R6 draft could be implemented,
> portably,
> atop any R5 implementation, including SCM?

That's pretty close to what I understood from Aubrey's opening sentence:

> By requiring phased processing of libraries, R5.92RS has
> disenfranchised "pure interpreters", apparently for the sake of
> macros.

And acccording to my dictionary (English is not my first language):
   disenfranchise: deprive (someone) of a right or privilege

So, how could R6RS disenfranchise pure interpreters, and at the same
time, be implemented atop these same interpreters?

Thanks.

Aziz,,,
Received on Wed Mar 07 2007 - 03:39:57 UTC