# [plt-scheme] Smallest set of operators

On 2/2/07, Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>*
*>* On Feb 2, 2007, at 7:36 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
*>*
*>* > On 2/2/07, Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
*>* >>
*>* >> 1. You need to specify what you mean with define.
*>* >>
*>* >
*>* > define = implement.
*>*
*>*
*>* This definition is naive. Just use ONE SINGLE combinator (X, see
*>* Barendregt) and you can compile EVERY language to it. -- Matthias
*>*
*>*
*>*
*>*
*>* > So, you implement the set of scheme operators X.
*>* > Scheme standard is built of operators in set Y. Question was: what's
*>* > the minimal set X with which you can implement Y - X?
*>* >
*
Moreover, X would have to be part of Scheme for your answer to be
correct under my assumptions. I asked for the set X _of scheme
operators_.
--
Paulo Jorge Matos - pocm at soton.ac.uk
http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/pocm
PhD Student @ ECS
University of Southampton, UK