[R6RS] R6RS = Common Scheme?

R. Kent Dybvig dyb
Tue Jan 20 20:23:31 EST 2004

> I should also point out that I strongly believe in a separation of a
> "core" Scheme language from libraries.  I would like to see the core
> be very small, and to place the operations on numbers, lists, vectors,
> strings, ports in librairies.

We'll have to flush the dot interface if we move lists outside of
the core.

I sympathize with this point of view, since it sounds like it will yield
a nice, modular language of which we can all be proud.  Some practical
problems, however, may crop up, like the dot interface problem.
Another might involve user-defined records.  Assuming we agree on some
form of user-defined records, it might make sense to describe all built-in
aggregate types as if they were created by the record definition facility.
This could suck the record definition facility into the core and along
with it anything involved defining records, including possibly symbols,
lists, and numbers.

If we do separate the language into a core and set of libraries, I would
want us to establish a reasonable set of standard libraries that are
visible by default, i.e., unless specifically omitted by the programmer.
Programmers should be able to write programs in a reasonable, standard
subset of the language without having to include any declarations at
the top of their program files.


More information about the R6RS mailing list