[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [r6rs-discuss] Implementors' intentions concerning R6RS

From: Neil Jerram
Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] Implementors' intentions concerning R6RS
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:51:53 +0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)

address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Hi,
> Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:
>> FWIW, my feeling about R6 as a whole is that it is not aligned with
>> Guile's objective - remembering that the latter is not just to be a
>> Scheme implementation, but a Scheme implementation in the form of an
>> embeddable library that is useful for extending applications.  But my
>> thoughts on this haven't fully crystallised yet.
> Speaking of this, I hope you (Guile developers) don't mind my answer to
> Marc Feeley wrt. R6RS, which he posted on `r6rs-discuss' [0].  We
> haven't had a debate about it here, but I'd be glad if we had one.

Well I didn't mind.  I was happy to see that Marc had received a
statement from "Guile", and I'm happy with what you said.

> BTW, as time passes, I am more and more doubtful about the "embeddable
> library" argument.  After all, if we work on a Scheme implementation,
> that's certainly because we want to write Scheme.  Sure we want to make
> it easy to interface with existing code written in C, but we also want
> to write *more* Scheme code.

^ Agreed up to here...

>  With that goal in mind, the pure
> interpreter approach is not sustainable

... but I don't see what you mean by this.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]