On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:41:34 -0400, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Aaron W. Hsu scripsit:
>
>> I'm not convinced that it makes a difference whether a feature is
>> implementable or not in the Small Scheme. If we create a standard
>> feature
>> or library of things that aren't easily implemented in Small Scheme, why
>> should we then put them in Small Scheme?
>
> Because they are ripe for standardization.
I agree that we should definitely standardize the things that are ripe. I
also think that we shouldn't start trying to throw every standard into a
single document or process. It makes sense to me to standardize all these
things in parallel, as separate efforts. So, we could standardize records
outside of the core Scheme. Doing so would get us the benefits of a
standard record type, but would simplify the process of standardizing a
core.
>> > [SRFI 8] receive
>>
>> Why would we need to do this? This is easy to implement.
>
> Assoc is easy to implement. List is easy to implement. We have them
> because they're expected and useful. So is receive.
>
> [many comments to the same effect snipped]
So these are things we definitely want to standardize. Let's take
advantage of the very modular aspects of working groups and standardize
these features outside of the core as libraries, and restrict the core to
a fairly clean, lean semantic model and some other more academic things.
Understandably, no one wants to import dozens of libraries just to write
"Hello World," so, we should also make meta libraries. It could make sense
to make IEEE/R4RS/R5RS meta libraries that can run this code, but still
separate out their components into piecemeal documents.
Aaron W. Hsu
--
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. -- C. S. Lewis
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
