On Mar 7, 2007, at 2:59 AM, Thomas Lord wrote:
Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote:
Aubrey, what's this class of "pure interpreters" that you're
concerned about? How do they semantically differ from say petite,
csi, gsi, mzscheme, guile, gosh, rscheme, etc?
Doesn't adding the word "semantically" to that question rather miss
the point?
How could I miss a point when asking a question? The purpose of my
question was to enquire, not to miss or make a point. If you think
the question was invalid, then please explain.
Did anyone deny that the current R6 draft could be implemented,
portably,
atop any R5 implementation, including SCM?
That's pretty close to what I understood from Aubrey's opening sentence:
By requiring phased processing of libraries, R5.92RS has
disenfranchised "pure interpreters", apparently for the sake of
macros.
And acccording to my dictionary (English is not my first language):
disenfranchise: deprive (someone) of a right or privilege
So, how could R6RS disenfranchise pure interpreters, and at the same
time, be implemented atop these same interpreters?
Thanks.
Aziz,,,
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
