[R6RS] questions and issues
Anton van Straaten
anton at appsolutions.com
Tue Jan 16 09:59:26 EST 2007
R. Kent Dybvig wrote:
> 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?
Oh sure, I didn't notice that. Although there could be a minor
explanatory benefit in mentioning #!r6rs somewhere in that section.
> 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"
Sorry, I will add that this afternoon.
> 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:
I must have added the file and not committed it, or something. I've now
committed scriptappendix.tex. However, it's not integrated into any
larger document. To test it, I just included it at the end of my own
copy of r6rs.tex. Mike had suggested a separate document for the
> d. A note that R6RS-conformant implementations can omit script
> support when appropriate, such as in implementations targeting
> embedded platforms.
I have not included anything explicitly about this yet, because I
thought the whole appendix would be marked as non-normative somehow.
> e. A rationale for the inclusion of the above details in the report.
I will do that this afternoon too.
> 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?
My 0.02 is that it's helpful to include a not-entirely-trivial example.
(Although perhaps it should also be in a non-normative appendix?)
Perhaps the (r6rs r5rs) could be considered as an example of how to deal
with deprecated features...
More information about the R6RS