[R6RS] Re: R6RS = Common Scheme?

Michael Sperber sperber
Wed Jan 21 18:06:50 EST 2004

Come to think of it, the term "Common Scheme" worries me.  It seems to
be meant to sound like Common Lisp which is essentially a *union* of
features, but you seem to mean an *intersection*.  (Which I
support---especially since I've had to use Common Lisp
professionally.)  On the other hand, the first bullet of examples you
give (lexical syntax) aren't even close to common among major Scheme
implementations, even as represented by the editors.

In fact, the list I'd have come up with from your description would
look entirely different---something like this (but even these
represent guesses to some extent):

- There's a mode available where "it is an error" in R5RS is roughly
  equivalent to "an error is signalled," specifically in the area of

- There's a single (up to EQ?-ness) identifiable EOF object.

- Continuations created by BEGIN accept a number of arguments
  different from 1.

- Inexact floats are represented as something close to IEEE754
  floating-point numbers.

Please correct me if you know a Scheme implementation where one of the
above isn't true.

Especially the first item might be worth putting in writing, as many
people assume it anyway and do advertising for Scheme on its basis.
(Like Olin Shivers, for example.)

Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla

More information about the R6RS mailing list