On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Guillermo J. Rozas <[email protected]>wrote:
> > 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. > > > Larceny was one of the first to support R6RS. So taking MIT Scheme out of the loop, we are left with Gambit and Bigloo (and Chicken does not really count due to it's lack of a number tower). So of the 5 major active implementations, 60% supports or plans to support it (only waiting on Chez). Hardly what I would call unwilling. -- http://codeplex.com/IronScheme http://xacc.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
