[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
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
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
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