On 2009-09-10, at 17:16, Brian Harvey wrote: > 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. +1
In the words of the my recent posting about what an R7RS would look like, I'd like to see an Additional Specification defining the precise behavior of a conformant REPL. > (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.) Well, you can build a Cobol compiler and call it Scheme if you want to, the name has never been trademarked. Which gets me to thinking, would it make sense for some imaginary organization to register `R7RS' as a trademark, thus allowing some control over the use of the name? Just a thought. As for what `Scheme' is, perhaps we could put adjectives before `Scheme' in Thing1 and Thing2, and then say that (unadorned) Scheme is Thing1 plus the REPL. -- v _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
