------- Forwarded message ------- From: "John Cowan" <[email protected]> To: "Aaron W. Hsu" <[email protected]> Cc: "John Cowan" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] Proposed features for small Scheme, part 1: a stake in the ground Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:34:44 -0400
Aaron W. Hsu scripsit: > 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. That's been *done*. That's what the SRFI process is. Now I'm talking about folding back a small number of SRFIs and a handful of stuff from R6RS, so that people can look at a single document and see all the basics. As I've said, I'm okay with making lots of things optional: R5RS already does, far beyond just the six procedures actually marked "optional", and the charter suggests even more. But I am not up for fragmenting just for the sake of fragmenting, so that someone who supports only "lambda" can claim he has a Scheme, nyuk nyuk nyuk. > 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. Only in the sense that you simplify the job of peeling potatoes by dividing them into five lots first. If you *really* have parallel processors available, that's fine; but history suggests that we simply don't. > 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. What things? The line must be drawn somewhere. The SC has drawn it at IEEE; I'm trying to leverage the SRFI and R6RS processes to get the good stuff in. Why restandardize records, or string ports? We *have* standards for them. > 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. Sure. -- 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
