[R6RS] Unicode SRFI - responses needed

Matthew Flatt mflatt
Tue Jul 19 14:20:33 EDT 2005

At Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:29:58 +0200, Michael Sperber wrote:
> On a general note, some people have noted the desire to make very
> small implementations of Scheme (on embedded systems, say) and still
> be standards-compliant.  I support that in the sense that these
> implementations should be able to say what subset of the standard they
> support in the terminology provided by R6RS---possibly just by saying
> "we implement the libraries such and such" given a suitable
> partitioning of what's in R6RS into libraries.
> Concretely, this means that I think subsets should be supported, and
> that the -ci procedures and string case mapping should live in a
> distinct library.

I set up my answer by first replying for to your "Splitting into core
and libraries" message.

In short, I agree with you, but I propose that we not try to define the
separate library or the subset variants for now.

(If we end up agreeing on this, of course, we should certainly explain
the long-term plan in the SRFI's rationale section.)


More information about the R6RS mailing list