On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 5:17 PM, David A. Wheeler
<address@hidden> wrote:
I said:
> > I'd really like for there to be a common spec for Scheme with libraries, etc., and my hope is that R7RS will be that spec.
Ian Price:
> Call me a cynic, but if r6rs couldn't do that, then I don't see how r7rs
> could be given that it actively avoids many important portability questions.
Well, the cynics are often right :-). But I think R7RS is intentionally much more conservative and R5RS-like. In particular, it's *supposed* to be easy for an R5RS implementation to move to R7RS. If it's easier to adopt, it's more likely to be adopted.
Scheme is rediculously non-portable due to its lack of a *standard* library system. If a standard for *that* could be widely adopted, many other portability problems would be drastically reduced.
> But we all can dream...
Indeed!
--- David A. Wheeler