[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Scheme-reports] WG1/WG2 Scheme naming proposal


I know it is a bit early to discuss this, but as I saw that this was 
mentioned again recently in the scheme-reports mailing list (in the 
context of module naming), I quickly wanted to write up a proposal of 
how the WG1 and WG2 standards could be named in the future.

First of all, I think that it is expected by many that what will end up 
being WG1 Scheme should labeled the actual "Scheme" programming language 
- not "Small Scheme" or something - as this is what is thought as being 
Scheme: a language that is minimal but practical. Also, WG1 is the only 
document that has mandatory language features, so it natural to still 
name every implementation that implements these features as a complete 
Scheme implementation.

Following this line of thought, WG2's all-optional modules and rules can 
be thought of as "extensions" to the core language, but extensions that 
are agreed up on (as opposed to implementation-specific).

So in summary, I'd like to propose the following names for the WG1 

WG1: *Report on the Algorithmic Language Scheme, Revised 2011* (abbr.: RS11)

WG2: *Report on Standard Extensions to the Algorithmic Language Scheme, 
Revised 2011* (abbr.: RSES11; alternatively, "[...] Commobn Extensions 
[...]", abbr. RCES11; should probably be "Published 2011" as there is no 
original document to revise.)

The standard module namespace could then be moved from (scheme ...) to, 
e.g., (rsn ...) (analogous to (rnrs ...) from R6RS).

I hope this proposal is helpful.

Denis Washington

Scheme-reports mailing list