On 15/05/14 00:06, Per Bothner wrote: > I don't know what the solution is. It is possible that R7RS-large is too > ambitious, at least for the Scheme community. Perhaps we should aim for a > more modest r7.1rs with a few optional additions. Perhaps every other year > we could have a new 7.x point release with some modules we can take more > time to get consensus for. Instead focusing on features perhaps it is > more important to find a standards language and framework for optional > features and modules. As I see it, R7RS-large is causing people to think about what SRFIs we need and to write them, which is great. What goes "into R7RS-large" is then largely irrelevant, as R7RS implementations will be R7RS-small + all relevant SRFIs (meaning: all SRFIs apart from ones skipped in ideological grounds, ones not practical/relevant to the target platform, or ones they've just not gotten around to yet). I suspect that a "common consensus" on the set of SRFIs that makes a "practical implementation" will emerge organically, and predicting that set to mandate it now will be difficult :-) ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports