Andre van Tonder <andre@x> 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@x
Attachment:
pgpT0erTBAFtK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports