Re: [Chicken-hackers] R6RS

[Alaric Snell-Pym]

On 3 Aug 2009, at 7:31 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:

> But r6rs has been out a while.  I think we should create a "punchlist"
> of to-do items, with the goal being to get r6rs compliance in the
> not-too-distant future.  With the version 4 macro system in place,
> this
> shouldn't be too far off.
>
> And yet, we have a quote from Felix Winkelmann from a couple years ago
> saying it will never happen, and "R6RS must die".

R6RS has been a controversial standard in the Scheme community, and
one that many wish to boycott. Just because a standard is more recent,
doesn't necessarily mean it's better; I, for one, would rather use an
R5RS scheme than R6RS.

I'm hoping R7RS will be better. Let's hold out for that :-)

However, I can imagine that R6RS compliance may be useful to some - so
perhaps you should organise an effort to write an r6rs egg that
provides r6rs behaviour on top of Chicken 4, so people can have it if
they want it, but it's not the default?

ABS

--
Alaric Snell-Pym
Work: http://www.snell-systems.co.uk/
Play: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/
Blog: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/?author=4