[R6RS] R6RS = Common Scheme?

[Manuel Serrano]

> > > 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.
> 
> That is true.  However, we could have the core define a basic lambda
> with only non-rest-parameters.  Then the list library could extend the
> syntax of lambda to allow rest-parameters.  Alternatively the core
Hum, don't you think that this is dangerous? A library that extends the
syntax of the language is more than a library is the usual sense. In my
mind a library is more like an API. Don't you think that enabling 
libraries to extend the syntax implies that we should agree *first* on 
the module and the macros. This is an endemic problem...

> could define the rest-parameter syntax, explain that a list of the
> parameters is created, and let the list library define the primitives
> that access lists.  "apply" also causes this problem if it is in the
> core.
But you are creating a core-language that is not "stand-alone". Don't you
think that this approach minimizes the interest of having two stratum?


-- 
Manuel