[plt-scheme] Smallest set of operators

From: Paulo J. Matos (pocm at soton.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Feb 2 14:11:44 EST 2007

On 2/2/07, John Clements <clements at brinckerhoff.org> wrote:
> You're still being way too vague.  Depending on what you want, the
> answers might include any of the following:
> 1) just the C primitives.  Then your upper layer needs to compile to C.
> 2) Some kind of assembly language
> 3) A tree-based language of combinators (cf earlier discussion of X)
> 4) something like Kelsey (& Rees's?) pre-scheme.
> 5) the lambda calculus.
> ...
> It depends entirely on what your goals are.  The question as you've
> stated it does not have anything like a single answer.

I'm really sorry but I really can't grasp what's so hard to understand
in my question. I keep saying that the set of primitive values (let's
call it this instead of operators) needs to belong to scheme. So, no
C, no lambda calculus, no whatever complicated name, logic or
calculus... Scheme!!! You get a set of scheme primitives to implement
the rest of the language. Which ones do you pick for a minimal set???
Is this too vague?

> John Clements

Paulo Jorge Matos - pocm at soton.ac.uk
PhD Student @ ECS
University of Southampton, UK

Posted on the users mailing list.