Peter Bex scripsit: > If an implementation doesn't support hash tables, it might not need > comparators either. This is the same objection as I have with requiring > the full numeric tower.
Where do you draw the line? Lots of useful Scheme programs don't use vectors for anything: do you advocate making them merely optional as well? If not, why not? > I don't see why this has to be. It will just exclude small > specialised implementations which would still like to support > a standardised library if it fits its intended use cases. There's no reason *not* to exclude small specialized implementations from a large standard. That doesn't mean the implementations can't support libraries from -large if they want to: I assume lots of libraries will work with Chibi even if they are not packaged with it. > For example, Chibi Scheme might decide to ship a few WG2 modules, > but you can compile it without bignum support. Does that mean > it isn't WG2-compatible? If that ballot question passes, then yes, Chibi will not be R7RS-large compliant when compiled without bignum support. Nothing wrong with that. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] Is it not written, "That which is written, is written"? _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
