> inessential procedures: ... load ... Reading this was enough to convince me that the WG1 \subset WG2 principle might be wrong. Maybe the two most useful categories aren't "small" and "large," or "educational" and "industrial," but "optimized for interaction" and "optimized for optimized compilation." In the former category, there's nothing inessential about LOAD.
(I do understand that "essential" means "can't be written in terms of other essential elements of the language" rather than "can't live without it," but I don't see how to write LOAD without EVAL, which iirc isn't on anyone's list.) I can see why compiler writers might be happier without LOAD. That's why I'm no longer convinced about the subset principle. Someone who wants a tiny Scheme to be used in the computer inside a toaster or something might actually want a WG2 Scheme, if the latter is clever about not loading unused libraries. That is, there might be a large WG2 Scheme compilerthat generates small, fast executables. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
