On 22 Sep 2009, at 2:48 pm, John Cowan wrote: > Andrew Reilly scripsit: > >> Why would thing-1 necessarily have to contain all of the workings >> for a scheme for >> embedded systems? > > See the draft charter for WG1, which says: > > # The purpose of working group 1 is to develop specifications, > documents, > # and proofs of implementability for a "small" language in the Scheme > # family. This small language will encapsulate the fundamental > features > # of Scheme. Its target uses include education, programming language > # research, small embedded systems, and embedded scripting languages, > # where it is appropriate to use a lightweight language at the > semantic > # level and/or in the implementation. > > If you don't like that (as it seems you don't), take it up with the > Steering Committee.
I don't see the two as conflicting. It doesn't mean that thing-1 needs to be *complete* for those environments (as an education language, must it include Logo-esque turtle graphics, in order to teach small children?) I'd say that a requirement for being usable for embedded programming would mean it should mandate very little - not all embedded apps will need binary ports. Obviously, a line must be drawn somewhere, but I don't see the WG1 charter as requiring that the line be drawn above binary I/O. ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym Work: http://www.snell-systems.co.uk/ Play: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ Blog: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/archives/author/alaric/ _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
