2009/9/24 John Cowan <[email protected]>: >> 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 .
Done. Interesting list. There is some interesting factorization possible, and in fact, I have a language that I implemented over the summer that contains them. Perhaps I will get enough time in bebtween corporate skirmishing to clean it up and post it as an actual coherent proposition. >> 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. Well with full TCO, you can always do CPS at the user level, so CALL/CC falls into my "worst-case optional" category. Lexical scope, as outlined in my Thing0 proposal earlier on the list, is pretty much a requirement to even get invited to dinner in clan Scheme. david rush -- 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
