2009/9/23 Brian Mastenbrook <[email protected]>: >John Cowan: >> Part of the reason for small Scheme is to allow such implementations >> to come out into the light, to claim conformance even though they are >> lacking quite a lot of IEEE/R4RS/R5RS.
Whoa. That makes small Scheme definitely smaller than all known (to me, natch :) descriptions of Thing1. And it might be better to say "document" than "claim", especially since this is sinking towards Thing0-Strict (lower?). > Should we do the same for implementations without unlimited-extent > reifiable continuations, proper tail calls, hygienic macros (or with > broken hygiene), etc.? Well I *did* propose two more levels of a "small Scheme" hierarchy below Thing1. Personally, I think full TCO is pretty hard to live without. much of the rest is debatable. david -- GPG Public key at http://cyber-rush.org/drr/gpg-public-key.txt _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
