[plt-scheme] Is R6RS useless for PLT?

From: Robby Findler (robby at cs.uchicago.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 18 09:23:52 EST 2008

I, for one, certainly care to the extent that people who want to
develop libraries for R6RS will also be developing libraries for PLT


On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:12 AM,  <kbohdan at mail.ru> wrote:
> Hi,
> I know that PLT has r6rs implementation, but it doesn't look
> like PLT community cares much about it.
> Isn't it more logical to encourage writing new modules/libraries
> using r6rs ? PLT has a lot of specific extensions which can be
> added on the top of r6rs and at the same time *serve* as new standard
> proposals. IMHO, this strategy can have good effect on scheme
> evolution and language learning threshold.
> Is it just matter of the huge legacy codebase
> or am I missing something?
> --
> Bohdan
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme

Posted on the users mailing list.