John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> writes:

> I can't understand why, five years down the road, you'd look at which
> implementers *said* they would move to R6RS as opposed to which ones
> actually did.

Well, I don't know what you looked at, so I guessed.  If the criterion
is indeed how long it took implementations to move to R5RS to R6RS, I'd
welcome you to look at how long it took implementations to move from
R4RS to R5RS.  If that's a fact that measures community acceptance for a
standard, then R5RS was an abysmal failure, and you should start with
something earlier.

> These have had a release since September 2007, when R6RS was published,
> but do not attempt to provide R6RS facilities: Chicken, Scheme 9%, Bigloo,
> Kawa, Gauche, Gambit, Dfsch%, Schemik, BDC, Rep%, STklos, Owl Lisp%*,
> Chibi*, Scheme 7, Dream, Elk, FemtoLisp%*, NexJ*, TinyScheme, Spark*,
> MIT, SigScheme, SCM, Scheme48.  Most attempt R5RS compliance to some
> deviations; the ones marked with % do not.

So the criterion is "attempt R5RS compliance".  But for Guile:

> Guile has had a release and provides substantial R6RS facilities but
> does not aim at R6RS conformance.

... it is not?  What's the criterion for "attempt"?

Anyway, I've said my part, and this is the extent to which I care.  It's
your funeral.

--
Regards,
Mike

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