On Feb 23, 2009, at 5:56 AM, leppie wrote: > > Unless you assume, as apparently many have done, that R6RS is a dead > end that has > not had very wide acceptance, with major implementations stating that > they would ignore it. > > > So which major ones are ignoring it actually? > > The major ones I know of, all support or plan to support it. > > So who do we have left you consider major? > > For those that support R6RS, most implementations are very > portable. I dont think you can say about the portability between > the other non-R6RS ones on a R5RS level. > > Cheers > > leppie
Perhaps my memory is faulty, but I had heard (annecdotally) that Larceny and Marc Feeley's were not going to conform. Neither is MIT Scheme, but it is no longer under active development or use, so I'm not sure you'd agree that it was a major implementation, and it's lack of active development could explain (although it does not) the fact that it won't conform. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
