I said: > > I'd really like for there to be a common spec for Scheme with libraries, > > etc., and my hope is that R7RS will be that spec.
Ian Price: > Call me a cynic, but if r6rs couldn't do that, then I don't see how r7rs > could be given that it actively avoids many important portability questions. Well, the cynics are often right :-). But I think R7RS is intentionally much more conservative and R5RS-like. In particular, it's *supposed* to be easy for an R5RS implementation to move to R7RS. If it's easier to adopt, it's more likely to be adopted. Scheme is rediculously non-portable due to its lack of a *standard* library system. If a standard for *that* could be widely adopted, many other portability problems would be drastically reduced. > But we all can dream... Indeed! --- David A. Wheeler
