Thomas Bushnell BSG scripsit:
So the extraordinary compiler Stalin is sliding into obscurity, because
it remains stuck at r4rs, with nobody having done anything to bring it
up-to-date.
It's obscure because it's extraordinarily slow and the source code is
very difficult to understand or
On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 17:08 -0500, Peter Danenberg wrote:
I think we should create a punchlist of to-do items, with the goal
being to get r6rs compliance in the not-too-distant future.
Just curious: is your interest in r6rs motivated by a fetish for
novelty or more substantial reasons?
On 3 Aug 2009, at 7:31 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
But r6rs has been out a while. I think we should create a punchlist
of to-do items, with the goal being to get r6rs compliance in the
not-too-distant future. With the version 4 macro system in place,
this
shouldn't be too far off.
And
On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 23:28 +0100, Alaric Snell-Pym wrote:
On 3 Aug 2009, at 7:31 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
But r6rs has been out a while. I think we should create a punchlist
of to-do items, with the goal being to get r6rs compliance in the
not-too-distant future. With the version
There are many good reasons not to support R6RS. You might want to read
them here:
http://www.r6rs.org/ratification/results.html
Thomas Bushnell BSG t...@becket.net writes:
So the extraordinary compiler Stalin is sliding into obscurity, because
it remains stuck at r4rs, with nobody having
I'm sorry; those are reasons not to approve r6rs. There are many
things, it seems to me, which don't belong in the standard, but which
should be in any good Scheme system.
Are you saying that if X should not be in the standard, then it is wrong
for Chicken Scheme to implement X? Suppose r6rs
Chicken Scheme, along with its extension libraries, supports a large
superset of R6RS. Given what you have written below, I do not understand
why you think R6RS should be a guideline for a punchlist of features
to implement in Chicken. It is not a particularly good specification,
and
In a word, yes.
In multiple words, R6 is an abomination before the Lord.
R7 is in the works and will probably be supported provided the mistakes of
R6 are not repeated, which they won't be.
-elf
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
So the extraordinary compiler Stalin is sliding
2009/8/4 Ivan Raikov ivan.g.rai...@gmail.com:
There are many good reasons not to support R6RS. You might want to read
them here:
http://www.r6rs.org/ratification/results.html
[...]
Hello,
it may also be relevant to point to the ERR5RS standardization effort here:
Out of curiousity, what good reasons are there for using R6, since you seem
to be so behind doing so?
-elf
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I'm sorry; those are reasons not to approve r6rs. There are many
things, it seems to me, which don't belong in the standard, but which
Chicken is more alive than ever, so it's not a good comparison. :)
I personally have been working for some months to make Chicken work correctly
on basically every arch/os combination known to man, and to start abstracting
the compiler layer from the library layer (so that we can do, say, a jvm
aziz requested that this be posted to all the indivdual implementation lists.
so im doing so. despite my own feelings about where r6rs can and should go.
-elf
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:18:48 -0400
From: Abdulaziz Ghuloum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:11:03 -0400
From: Marc Feeley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [r6rs-discuss] Implementors' intentions concerning R6RS
At the Scheme workshop a few weeks ago there was a panel
discussion on the R6RS (Discussion
13 matches
Mail list logo
