[R6RS] questions and issues

R. Kent Dybvig dyb at cs.indiana.edu
Mon Jan 15 22:57:48 EST 2007

In programs.tex, the <toplevel program> grammar explicitly allows #!r6rs
to appear before the import form, but this is allowed even if not
explicitly allowed.  Should we simplify the grammar by eliminating that
grammar clause?

As part of the scripts => programs response (ticket 51), we promised to do
the following.  I wasn't able to find it.

   e. A rationale will be provided for "programs".  With the "script"
      aspect factored out, the remaining rationale for programs is 
      that they provide:

       i. A more informal format for Scheme code, comparable to the 
          R5RS top level, but better-defined.  A more detailed 
          treatment of this issue is given in the response to formal 
          comment #39, "Script-body differences".

      ii. A portable way to specify an entry point into a body of 
          Scheme code.

Also related to Ticket 51, have we done the following?

  2. A section specifying Scheme scripts will be added in a non-normative
     appendix, that will include the following:
      a. Specification of how a script relates to a Scheme program, 
         i.e. a script may be specified as a file (or some 
         generalization thereof, such as a "delimited piece of text") 
         containing an optional script header (e.g. beginning with 
         "#! " or "#!/"), which is followed by a Scheme program.
      b. Specification of the semantics of the "scheme-script" 
         interpreter. This will only be mentioned in this section.  
         The interpreter must ignore any script header and initiate 
         the execution of the remaining Scheme program.
      c. Brief descriptions of script handling on major operating 
         systems, such as Apple Macintosh, Unix, and Microsoft Windows.
      d. A note that R6RS-conformant implementations can omit script 
         support when appropriate, such as in implementations targeting 
         embedded platforms.
      e. A rationale for the inclusion of the above details in the report.

The example given in example.tex uses use delay and force, which have
been relegated to (r6rs r5rs), i.e., essentially deprecated.  Should we
rewrite or eliminate the example?


More information about the R6RS mailing list