[R6RS] R6RS = Common Scheme?

Marc Feeley feeley
Sat Jan 24 09:45:15 EST 2004

Manuel Serrano wrote:

> > 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...

Unfortunately I don't think we can come up with a partial order of all
the issues, and we will have to discuss things together (for example
separation in libraries and module system, and probably macro system).
Moreover, we need to discuss more-or-less unrelated issues in parallel
to finish the design of R6RS in a reasonable time.

> > 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?

Let's discuss that when the technical discussions start (we should
first collect the set of issues we want to address so that we can plan
our work).


More information about the R6RS mailing list