# [plt-scheme] Smallest set of operators

On 2/2/07, Paulo J. Matos <pocm at soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>* 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?
*
Your question is easy to understand.
Matthias has given you your answer. 1. He has also given you pointers
to understand that answer.
Maybe its time to think of a new question or try to go understand the
answers you've been given?
Maybe that will also help you understand why this question isn't very useful.
Good luck. And please do bring any new questions :)
Robby