> So if R7RS > specifies a REPL it probably needs to make "the very simple model > of interaction" be optional rather than required.
Why should it not be "performance and/or compile-time error reporting" that's optional? I think (I could be wrong of course) that this question is at the heart of the R6 debate. Many people found fault with details of the new stuff in R6, but those problems didn't give rise to the strong emotional rejection that some of us -- I, at least -- experienced. I wouldn't be upset because R6 got the module semantics wrong in some subtle way; I'd just calmly expect R7 to fix it. But to say that an interactive REPL is secondary, or optional, or of lesser importance, compared to /anything/, is in my mind a total hijacking of Scheme. This is what the WG1/WG2 split should be about. Yes, I want WG1 to produce a small, beautiful jewel of a standard, but that's not the main thing. The main thing is that I want WG1 to produce a REPL! I want to be able to work in Scheme the way I've always worked in Scheme and have been working in Lisp for 40 years or so. (I wasn't there quite at the beginning.) If this turns out to mean that WG1 Scheme and WG2 Scheme are incompatible, then so be it. WG1/WG2 compatibility is less important than the REPL. /Everything/ except for lambda is less important than the REPL! You can do whatever you want in WG2 Scheme. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
