On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Per Bothner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> (1) Should an implementation be able to (in good faith) call
> itself "Scheme" if it doesn't have a REPL (or load or eval)?
>
> I think the answer should be "yes".
In *theory*, you could write a metacircular evaluator in such
a Scheme and get your REPL back.
> (2) Should R7RS specify a REPL and its semantics?
No. I've seen three `theories' of REPL.
1) Traditional
2) DrScheme: reload the world every time you press run
3) An unusual backpatching module style that attempted to present
the illusion of a standard REPL but worked by generating a module
that captured the state of interaction so far.
They all have advantages and disadvantages and I'd hate to settle
on only one.
--
~jrm
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
