Re: A SISC Roadmap

Hi!

It's good to hear of your plans for SISC!

I have to say that I simply agree to the first three major changes,
including their order.

> 4. *Some* R6RS support, or, more likely, ERR5RS support
>    (http://scheme-punks.cyber-rush.org/wiki/index.php?title=ERR5RS:Charter).
>    R6RS is controversial, but there are good and less-good parts of it.
>    A lot makes sense, and we'll be evaluating this and implementing what
>    does make sense.

As several people pointed out, a sensible and unified module system is
probably the most important addition to R5RS. However I didn't have
the time to look closely at R6RS or ERR5RS so far, so I can't say if
they make good proposals or not.

Isn't the current module system a part of psyntax anyways? So it would
have to be replaced in step 1, then?

As far as I can tell from the controversy around R6RS, much of the
criticism revolves around the issue that they specify details that
should not be specified in the *standard*. However some of the
features it mandates are still nice to have in an *implementation*,
especially if the underlying platform (JVM) already supports much of
it (unicode, IEEE floats, etc.). But I might have missed some
important details here.

Kind regards
     Friedel/TauPan
--
        Friedrich Delgado Friedrichs <[email protected]>
Laziness led to the invention of the most useful tools.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

_______________________________________________
Sisc-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sisc-users

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkcCnK8ACgkQCTmCEtF2zECszgCeLRp/BL3pJ/VVLBsBRk6YJNbu
7JsAn08gOXL7QrHdC5Fxki0I4w0ZRBw8
=e/Q5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----