[r6rs-discuss] Implementors' intentions concerning R6RS

From: Elf <elf>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:12:07 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, R. Kent Dybvig wrote:

>> If you are an implementor and your
>> position is not included in the list, it would be
>> interesting to get your position by replying to
>> this thread with a brief statement of intent.
>
> We intend to make Chez Scheme and Petite Chez Scheme support R6RS fully by
> this time next year.
>
> While it would be great if every implementation were to adopt R6RS, that
> was never a possibility given the small number that fully adopted R5RS.
> The community attracts a diverse set of implementors all trying to fill
> different niches, which is good, but many are always going to pick and
> choose what they implement.
>
> That's not to say we shouldn't work toward a better standard, but I would
> not make acceptance by a majority of implementors the basis for judging
> whether the standard is a success, since any nontrivial standard is sure
> to fail on that account.

however, all older implementations that i am aware of support r4rs. the
most commonly unimplemented-or-partially-implemented change in r5, in my
experience, is hygenic macros. r6rs drastically increases the scope and
complexity of the least implemented feature. while this may not be
a basis for judging the success of a standard, one would question the
wisdom of a process that repeats and extends what is known to not work.

i must say i find dr. dybvig's attitude a tad disturbing:

"We intend this report to belong to the entire Scheme community [...] we
encourage implementors of Scheme to use this report as a starting point for
manuals and other documentation, modifying it as necessary.
...
In addition, this report is intended to:

* allow programmers to create and distribute substantial programs and libraries,
e.g., implementations of Scheme Requests for Implementation, that run without
modification in a variety of Scheme implementations."

                                                 -- R6RS

i was not aware that 'a variety of scheme implemementations' meant 'my
implementation and two others, and to hell with what the rest of you think'.
at what point does implementor and developer opinion matter? at what point
are we part of the entire Scheme community? apparently we're not right now.

-elf

>
Received on Fri Oct 26 2007 - 20:12:07 UTC