[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Scheme-reports] comments on draft 6: Libraries and Relationship of small/large lang
- To: scheme-reports@x
- Subject: [Scheme-reports] comments on draft 6: Libraries and Relationship of small/large lang
- From: Kun Liang <liangkun42@x>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:09:10 +0800
Did we ever discuss the relationship between r7rs small and large language? If we did, scheme-report should contain clear statements of this relation. Not just the split reason in page 3, but the relation between these two language themselvs.
Following is my viewpoint. Small language should define all the "core" syntax and primitives. These will keep stable for a long period of time. Large language is just a small language with a much bigger set of standard libraries.
In this sense, I think that we do not need to seperate the functions or values (in draft 6) into several libraries. If they were essential, we can just put them into a single library like (sheme lang) or (scheme base), and import this library in every scheme program by default. Any thing that not essential (purely for compatibility with r5rs) should be place into a seperate library like (scheme r5rs), will be removed in future.
Scheme-reports mailing list