Vincent Manis scripsit: > Darn! I was hoping to persuade everyone to call the small language > Foogol and the large one Conniver :-)
I'm for Foogol (it was I who retargeted the code generator from Vax assembly language to C, toot toot). > Agreed re separate loading. My point is that if we have n options, > then we have 2^n combinations that an implementor can choose from, > which hardly reaches any kind of goal of creating a `standard' > language. Well said. On the other hand, I never saw much point in required libraries (required, in the sense that conformant implementations must provide them), especially in a small Scheme. Unless there are multiple libraries introducing the same names, it's just extra work for the programmer to declare them. Develop with the full set of names, and use a tree-shaker for deployment. -- You know, you haven't stopped talking John Cowan since I came here. You must have been http://www.ccil.org/~cowan vaccinated with a phonograph needle. [email protected] --Rufus T. Firefly _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
