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

[Ludovic Courtès]

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.

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.  With that goal in mind, the pure
interpreter approach is not sustainable (although successful PLs have
been successful although they provided only interpreters for a long
time)...

Thanks,
Ludovic.

[0] http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2007-October/003351.html