William D Clinger wrote: > To what extent does the push to add new procedures > to the R6RS, including procedures that are simple > compositions of other R6RS procedures, derive from > fear that these procedures would be too slow if > Scheme programmers were to write them themselves > or to use a portable reference implementation?
As opposed to being added so that compilers can implement generic arithmetic with reasonable efficiency using a portable reference implementation? :-) Most of the new procedures are not new; they have been around in different forms in many implementations. The draft R6RS is in most cases simply standardizing a canonical form. Regards, Alan _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
