> Why? Does your favorite implementation not have a REPL? Would having > a REPL be specified by WG1 make your programs more portable? What > difference to your life would it make whether R7RS specifies a REPL?
I'm not worried that my favorite Scheme will suddenly stop having a repl altogether. I'm worried that it will suddenly not allow redefinition (in the sense we've always had) because its implementors will lean toward making the efficiency of compiled code more important than the sensibleness of the repl. I want the standard to be crystal clear that the semantics of the repl are not up for grabs. I think it's fine if Toaster Scheme doesn't have a repl at all. But if there /is/ a repl, then I want it to behave properly. I want the standard to ensure that my repl behaves properly for the same reason that you want modules, or macros, or whatever it is that you care about, to work properly. (And I think that Toaster Scheme has to be labelled in some special way; I'd like to be sure that something advertised just as "Scheme" has a repl.) _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
