On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Aaron W. Hsu<[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't think you can quantify the relative influence that any one Scheme > has on the rest of the community. You might be able to make broad, rough > classifications, but these would be hairy at best.
I only want a broad, rough classification. > A number of Schemes have implemented R6RS, and among them are big names like > PLT, Larceny, Chez, and Scheme48 (which, I believe has made a commitment to > doing so, but I haven't seen this yet). On the other hand, a large number of > Schemes have decidedly rejected R6RS, such as Gambit, Chicken, SCM, and MIT. Yes, and this is the problem I'm hoping to understand and hoping that I can help R7 avoid. We won't get a complete consensus on what goes in to R7, but I *hope* we can get all the `big names' aboard, and that if we do, it will be of benefit to the community. > I don't see the reason to worry about this partly classification above and > beyond the general examination of which features have the largest consensus > across all Scheme implementations. That is what I'm trying to figure out. What is a `large consensus'? Certainly any consensus that doesn't include Gambit, Chicken, SCM and MIT would be suspect. > > Aaron W. Hsu > > -- > Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims > may be the most oppressive. -- C. S. Lewis > -- ~jrm _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
