Re: R6RS Progress Report
- From: Michael Sperber <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 07:14:47 +0200
Max Hailperin <max@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Michael Sperber <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
... Now, a Scheme environment doesn't need a
standard to tell it what to do, but a portable Scheme program
does....
It may be worth noting that textbook authors also need a standard to
tell them what to tell their students to do. Textbooks have the same
portability issue as programs -- it is far easier to write a textbook
that presumes one specific Scheme implementation than to write one
that can be used with any RnRS-compliant system.
As a fellow textbook author, I sympathize with that concern. As you
must know, R5RS doesn't specify the interactive environment nearly
enough to write useful general instructions for students that are
applicable across implementations, at least without
implementation-specific supplements.
I would suggest that in order to support textbook authors, rather than
only programmers, the R6RS should specify an optional top level.
I think that's a desirable goal, but I believe it's currently beyond
the constraints the editors are facing. That doesn't mean it couldn't
be done in the future. I was merely trying to say that (I believe) it
isn't the intent of the editors to abolish or impoverish the top level.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: R6RS Progress Report
- From: Brian Harvey
- Re: R6RS Progress Report
- References:
- R6RS Progress Report
- From: Mitchell Wand
- Re: R6RS Progress Report
- From: Brian Harvey
- Re: R6RS Progress Report
- From: Michael Sperber
- Re: R6RS Progress Report
- From: Max Hailperin
- R6RS Progress Report
- Prev by Date: Re: R6RS Progress Report
- Next by Date: Re: Macro understanding problems (invalid context for definition)
- Previous by thread: Re: R6RS Progress Report
- Next by thread: Re: R6RS Progress Report
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading