I think it has to include a module system of some sort. If large scheme is to be implemented as set of modules/libs on top of small scheme. That would make programs more portable between large and small scheme. Also generic, non particular implementation optimized versions of those libs, could be provided for compatibly purposes for programs that users want to run on small scheme, but were originally written for large scheme.
Any scheme claiming to be large scheme should implement the standard set of libraries (whatever that set might be) while taking advantage of whatever internal implementations they can provide for those libs. At that point the working group for large scheme could just provided an implementation independent source code for those libs built strictly on top small scheme. That would be my ideal approach and it leaves things very flexible. Pavel On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Thomas Lord<[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 08:10 -0700, Pavel Dudrenov wrote: >> I completely agree with Elf. And Small scheme can just be scheme, and >> large scheme can be scheme-stdlib. > > I hope that small Scheme does *not* include > a module system but large scheme does. > > I also hope that small Scheme has a "weaker" > semantics. E.g., small Scheme requiring no > more than a subset of ASCII characters, big > Scheme requiring at least Unicode. > > I think it's strange, therefore, to regard big > Scheme as small Scheme plus libraries. > > -t > > > > _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
