Re: [Scheme-reports] R7RS large process discussion WAS Re: final draft of the R7RS small language

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Grant Rettke scripsit:

> >From what you said, would WG2 define the large language as WG1-small +
> a bunch of SRFIs?

In essence.  There may be some places where R7RS-small says MAY or
SHOULD and we think that R7RS-large should say MUST (see the pages
ImplementationsMay and ImplementationsShould).  In addition, there may be
a few things like `hex-digit-value` that are too trivial to be a SRFI,
or something like implicit vs. explicit phasing that doesn't fit the
SRFI model.

In addition, some SRFIs may themselves be MUSTs (I'm going to propose
that comparators be required, because the library is small but the reuse
value in other libraries is large), whereas the rest are SHOULDs.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan@x
To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all.  There are
no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language that
they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful. --The Hobbit

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