On Sun, 13 Sep 2009, Joe Marshall wrote: > I probably overstated the effect. My point was, however, that the interaction > mode of Dr Scheme is different from that of other Lisp or Scheme systems. > Standardizing on one or the other would be bad.
Maybe we are talking past each other on this REPL issue. Note that R5RS does not even require a REPL. It just defines program evaluation semantics to be consistent with what one would get in a usual REPL. I am against requiring a REPL. But I am for making program evaluation semantics consistent with a REPL, as in R5RS. I think DrScheme (in r5rs mode) is consistent with R5RS's REPL-compatible semantics. So would be certain pure compilers. A REPL is rightly not required by R5RS. Andre _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
