On 2009-09-10, at 23:12, John Cowan wrote: > Vincent Manis scripsit: > I will throw out an alternative, perhaps a trademark could exist for >> having passed a (hypothetical) test suite, as in `Certified R7RS >> Scheme Goodness'. A hypothetical trademark for a hypothetical test >> suite is too hypothetical for me, though. > That can exist (it's called a certification mark), but needs to be > set up by someone other than a manufacturer or seller of products.
Playing on with this amusing fantasy, imagine that we had a Scheme Foundation that existed to promote Scheme. It could own this mark in conjunction with a certification program it ran. >> OK, then this kills `Toaster Scheme', `Teaching Scheme', and `Ultra- >> Scheme' as names for Thing$_i$. This actually is worth thinking >> about, >> unlike the trademark issue. How ARE we going to name these suckers? > I wish I knew. The solution to this came to me earlier today. We slightly extend dialect names to follow the syntax <scheme-name> ::= <implementation>? <standard>? <level>? "Scheme". <standard-name> ::= "R" <integer> "RS". <implementation> ::= <identifier>+. <level> ::= <identifier>. This would give us such things as Gambit R7RS Scheme, Chicken R8RS Scheme, and so on. A <level> is then a profile, i.e., indicates Thing $_i$ along with a defined set of Additional Specifications. This gives us Yucca Flats Scheme and Garbanzo Bean Scheme, along with R7RS Toaster Scheme and R7RS Scheme, which matches the profile Brian says he wants to be unqualified. This is all overkill, right? :) -- v _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
