Re: A SISC Roadmap

On 10/2/07, Friedrich Delgado Friedrichs <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?
>
Yes, but the module system from 1 would be unchanged.

> 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.

Agreed, but we want to be careful to implement these features in a way
thats compatible with other Scheme systems where possible.  If these
other scheme systems aren't adopting R6RS, then that isn't helpful.
We will be adding these features in some form though.

Scott

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/