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

[Andy Wingo]

Hi Neil,

On Sun 28 Oct 2007 20:28, 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.

After having lots of plane time recently to read r6rs, I don't think
that r6rs is essentially unaligned with Guile. It's simply that a common
Guile use case is unspecified, viz embedding Scheme in a C app. If you
noticed, not even the REPL interface is specified in r6rs:

http://www.r6rs.org/final/html/r6rs-rationale/r6rs-rationale-Z-H-10.html#node_chap_8

Personally I feel that the pendelum has swung perhaps a bit too far in
the static direction, but that if people realize that the rnrs process
is up for change as Mitch Wand mentioned in the recent Scheme Workshop,
that more traditionally dynamic interfaces can be returned to the
standard.

Regards,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/