[R6RS] questions and issues

[Anton van Straaten]

R. Kent Dybvig wrote:
> In programs.tex, the <toplevel program> grammar explicitly allows #!r6rs
> to appear before the import form, but this is allowed even if not
> explicitly allowed.  Should we simplify the grammar by eliminating that
> grammar clause?

Oh sure, I didn't notice that.  Although there could be a minor 
explanatory benefit in mentioning #!r6rs somewhere in that section.

> As part of the scripts => programs response (ticket 51), we promised to do
> the following.  I wasn't able to find it.
> 
>    e. A rationale will be provided for "programs".  With the "script"

Sorry, I will add that this afternoon.

> Also related to Ticket 51, have we done the following?
> 
>   2. A section specifying Scheme scripts will be added in a non-normative
>      appendix, that will include the following:

I must have added the file and not committed it, or something.  I've now 
committed scriptappendix.tex.  However, it's not integrated into any 
larger document.  To test it, I just included it at the end of my own 
copy of r6rs.tex.  Mike had suggested a separate document for the 
appendices.

>       d. A note that R6RS-conformant implementations can omit script 
>          support when appropriate, such as in implementations targeting 
>          embedded platforms.

I have not included anything explicitly about this yet, because I 
thought the whole appendix would be marked as non-normative somehow.

>       e. A rationale for the inclusion of the above details in the report.

I will do that this afternoon too.

> The example given in example.tex uses use delay and force, which have
> been relegated to (r6rs r5rs), i.e., essentially deprecated.  Should we
> rewrite or eliminate the example?

My 0.02 is that it's helpful to include a not-entirely-trivial example. 
  (Although perhaps it should also be in a non-normative appendix?) 
Perhaps the (r6rs r5rs) could be considered as an example of how to deal 
with deprecated features...

Anton