On 28 Oct 2009, at 4:38 am, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:

> So WG1 Scheme, not WG2 Scheme, is intended to be a minimal language
> that can, among other things, work on embedded systems.  But WG1
> Scheme isn't intended to be a systems programming language, just one
> that is small enough and simple enough at the conceptual level and
> easy enough to implement that it is suitable not only for embedded
> systems, but also for education, research, and embedded scripting
> languages.  Those goals don't conflict with the language also being
> the core of more complex implementations that support WG2 Scheme.  If
> they do, then we should adjust the charters, since an explicit goal of
> both charters is that the working groups "...must work together to
> produce specifications that are consistent with one another."

I agree. Rather than worrying too much about the irreconcilable
requirements of different kinds of programming language, perhaps it
would be good to sit and think just what they DO have in common.

I think we can agree that just about any Scheme should have consistent
semantics for:

(lambda (x) (+ 1 x))     ; perhaps subject to magnitude of x ;-)
(call/cc call/cc)
(if (= 1 2) 'foo 'bar)

...and all sorts of more useful things.

Yes, the best behaviour of (+
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 1) is
arguable, as it the behaviour of (string-ref "☺" 0) - but let's look
at what we *can* agree on, and standardise that.

ABS

--
Alaric Snell-Pym
Work: http://www.snell-systems.co.uk/
Play: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/
Blog: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/archives/author/alaric/

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports