[r6rs-discuss] Implementors' intentions concerning R6RS

From: William D Clinger <will>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:42:19 -0400

Jon Wilson quoting Aziz:

> > The "Scheme implementations" are those that adopt R6RS of
> > course.
>
> Slow down, cowboy! Actually, everyone check your watches. This is
> first time I've seen this, but I doubt it will be the last. Now, R6RS
> is "Scheme", and those who don't adopt R6RS are doing some other than
> implementing "Scheme". Only Chez, Scheme48, and PLT are now "Scheme
> implementations".

If "Scheme" meant R6RS, then Larceny would be a lot closer
to being an implementation of Scheme than the three systems
you mentioned.

Of course, the *real* test of an implementation is how well
it supports *all* relevant standards: IEEE/ANSI/R5RS, ERR5RS,
and (maybe) the R6RS. ;)

Wilson, still quoting Aziz:

> > Seriously, do you think that the opinion of some of the
> > implementors whose implementations have 0% user base have
> > any weight as far as how everybody else should go about
> > doing business?
>
> Well, yes. I also think that the users of those implementations with
> "0% user base" should have some weight.

In particular, the implementor of Ikarus should not be ignored
just because his user base is small.

Will
Received on Tue Oct 30 2007 - 09:42:19 UTC