David Rush scripsit: > 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?).
Take a look at http://tinyurl.com/feature-groups . That's my first cut at sorting the essential-essential from what may be irrelevant in some environments. > > 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. Give up TCO and reifiable continuations, and you just have an undersized Common Lisp. What next, giving up lexical scope because it's slower in a naive interpreter than dynamic scope? C'mon. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan <[email protected]> "Any legal document draws most of its meaning from context. A telegram that says 'SELL HUNDRED THOUSAND SHARES IBM SHORT' (only 190 bits in 5-bit Baudot code plus appropriate headers) is as good a legal document as any, even sans digital signature." --me _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
