On 2009-09-10, at 07:05, Aaron W. Hsu wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 04:28:58 -0400, Ray Dillinger <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> ... R6RS >> failed to address finding standard modules in an installed system. > > It failed to address this for good reason. A lanugage standard is a > standard for a language, an Thing One should be first and formost a > language document, not some document about how to implement this > language.
For over 40 years (the first standard I ever read was Fortran IV) programming language standards have included language such as `This document does not specify...the way that programs are stored, retrieved, and represented in a data-processing system'. With respect to Scheme, I'm not entirely sure that libraries would always be in text or fasl/object files on a computer. A Java or .NET-based Scheme might add additional places where libraries might be found, as might a Scheme system embedded in a DBMS (or a toaster). Having said that, a non-normative appendix (as in R6RS, but greatly expanded) can help immensely in standardizing common practice. A useful activity would be to make a list of aspects where libraries (or other aspects of the language) are underspecified. Some of those might go in the next standard, while others might be added to this non- normative appendix. -- v _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
