David Van Horn scripsit: > As an exercise in trying to figure out precisely what one can expect to > find when moving between Schemes, I reviewed the R3,4,5,6RS and > IEEE/ANSI standards. I wanted to find their least common denominator > (the "essential" Scheme); a list of must-haves for a Scheme to be a Scheme.
R2 and R3 are dead. R4 is very nearly dead; the implementations that only support R4RS are pretty much unmaintained. R5 and R6 are where it's at. > Essential Scheme is the minimal subset of the language expected to be > supported by any Scheme system. It represents the fundamental and > simple core of the language. It is lightweight at the semantic and > implementation level. It is useful for research, prototyping, > language experimentation, and understanding existing teaching > materials. Its specification is comparable in size to research paper > accounts of Scheme (i.e. much smaller than even R3RS). 84 bound symbols. My question is, why do we need a standard as tiny as this, when tiny R5RS-compliant systems that are perfectly practicable for the purposes mentioned above, like chibi-scheme, already exist? (Version 0.2 has 4308 lines of C and 708 lines of Scheme, plus 578 lines of Scheme in tests.) -- John Cowan [email protected] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan O beautiful for patriot's dream that sees beyond the years Thine alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears! America! America! God mend thine every flaw, Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law! --one of the verses not usually taught in U.S. schools _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
