> > Can you mention the part of R5RS that mandates a REPL? > > I didn't say that R5RS mandated a REPL. I said that the REPL had > been removed from the spec. Note that LOAD, for example, is gone.
To cite the important parts of R5RS (Chapter 5.1 Programs): "... Programs are typically stored in files or entered interactively to a running Scheme system, although other paradigms are possible; ... Expressions occurring at the top level of a program are interpreted imperatively; ..." Nevertheless, this interactive use, which can't be provided without any kind of read-eval-print-loop, is not dropped in R592RS, but somehow hidden in Chapter 7.1 Rationale. > In any case, one of the great things about Scheme and Lisp in general > has always been their support for interactive, experimental use. If > we have to patch an entire program before any part of it can be run, > we will have lost another part of this interactive, experimental nature. Without the load-procedure, the *experimental* character of interpreter use is gone, but I try to write some lines on "libraries, extensions and safety" the next days. The proposed standard seems focussed on compilers, but this is just a personal impression from a casual scheme user. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
