Hallo,
On 9/22/09, John Cowan <[email protected]> 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.
>
It yet doesn't mean that Small Scheme must have all that is
needed for use in embedded systems. Only that it should be suitable
for that, such as by being small.
--
-alex
http://www.ventonegro.org/
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
