On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Thomas Lord<[email protected]> wrote: > I'd (personal preference) like small scheme to be > something that can run on a 1-watt, low-memory > system in, say, a light switch. I'd like to be able > to use it in situations where I'm never going to > load it up with more than a few lines of code (and > couldn't, even if I wanted to). But the small scheme > standard tells me what those few lines of code mean.
Any scheme that would end up being able to run on a light switch would have to be an implementation specifically designed to do such. And just by running in such a constrained system, it would already lose nearly all portability with code written for any other "small scheme" implementation. It seems silly to constrain the standard language to maintain some sort of imaginary compatibility with an implementation that inherently can't be compatible. Nicholas "Indy" Ray _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
