Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] Scheme pattern matching: the case for (case)

[Eli Barzilay <eli@x>]

Earlier today, John Cowan wrote:
> Eli Barzilay scripsit:
> 
> > > R6RS provided a module system
> > 
> > Still does.
> 
> By "R6RS" I mean the process, not the product.
> 
> > There are some implementations that provide module systems and a
> > (deterministic) repl.  
> 
> Can you elaborate on this?  Obviously, it's possible to have *some*
> sort of REPL, such as the one discussed some months ago in which typing
> #!r6rs throws away the world and implicitly starts over with an empty
> top-level program.  But that's nothing like a Scheme REPL as we know it.

I'm talking about taking some existing implementation and formalizing
what it does, which is trivially possible, and has questionable value
(given that the repl will still be hopeless even if formally so).

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

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