Sam TH wrote: > In which version of the Scheme report did first class environments > appear? Fexprs? > >
None but you can see the power of (a weaker variation on the proposed) FEXPRs in SCM. You can get a hint of the potential of environments from MIT Scheme. Honestly, entering the Scheme scene around R3 or R4 I had the impression that, by the time of something like R6, things would have gone in these fairly obvious directions. I'm really quite struck, by the way, at how Scheme has languished in the real-world HLL wars, losing to such less disciplined efforts like Python, Lua, Ruby, etc.... all of which seem to have in common (and that has a big impact on the kinds of innovation that drives them) that they have prototype-based object systems. That those are pragmatically identifiable as first-class mutable environments in Scheme, and that such a feature can also be arrived at in independent ways, suggests to me it is a very natural direction for the language to take. It's ironic that we've recently seen (on c.l.s.) a long thread debating the exact meanings of terms like JIT compilation, incremental compilation, etc...... Had Scheme been liberalized in the direction of FEXPRs and first class environments a few years back, by now, there'd be a lot of interesting R&D in on-line incremental compilation of Scheme. -t _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
