Jon Wilson quoting Aziz: > > The "Scheme implementations" are those that adopt R6RS of > > course. > > Slow down, cowboy! Actually, everyone check your watches. This is > first time I've seen this, but I doubt it will be the last. Now, R6RS > is "Scheme", and those who don't adopt R6RS are doing some other than > implementing "Scheme". Only Chez, Scheme48, and PLT are now "Scheme > implementations".
If "Scheme" meant R6RS, then Larceny would be a lot closer to being an implementation of Scheme than the three systems you mentioned. Of course, the *real* test of an implementation is how well it supports *all* relevant standards: IEEE/ANSI/R5RS, ERR5RS, and (maybe) the R6RS. ;) Wilson, still quoting Aziz: > > Seriously, do you think that the opinion of some of the > > implementors whose implementations have 0% user base have > > any weight as far as how everybody else should go about > > doing business? > > Well, yes. I also think that the users of those implementations with > "0% user base" should have some weight. In particular, the implementor of Ikarus should not be ignored just because his user base is small. Will _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
