Andre van Tonder <andre@het.brown.edu> writes:

> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Alex Shinn wrote:
>
>> This could possibly be disastrous for implementor uptake, since one
>> of the most common complaints against R6RS was its handling of
>> top-levels, and specifically its forbidding of REPLs.
>
> R6RS didn't forbid REPLs.

I must admit, I also found this statement rather odd.

It also seems to me that once you strike Schemes with no recent history
of being updated *at all* from the list of implementations, the majority
of implementations *did* adopt R6RS, so I'm not sure what "disastrous"
means, either.

Or we could put SIOD, T, Rabbit, and Oaklisp on the list, and talk about
how poor adoption of R5RS was.  :-)

--
				Jim Wise
				jwise@draga.com

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