[plt-scheme] Re: Is R6RS useless for PLT?

From: Robby Findler (robby at cs.uchicago.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 18 10:03:19 EST 2008

Unfortunately, that is a tradeoff we do not yet know how to do better
on. There has been substantial effort from the PLT world towards R6RS,
however, so do not think we don't care!


On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:40 AM,  <kbohdan at mail.ru> wrote:
> The only problem is that I'm forced to choose between power and portability.
> --
> Bohdan
> Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>> As the naming conventions in DrScheme suggest, we consider
>> our Module language the primary development vehicle. R6RS,
>> like R5RS, is supported and available. Bug reports and
>> feature requests are taken seriously. As Robby indicates,
>> R6RS is our bridge to other Scheme implementations and we
>> would like libraries to flow into our world. -- Matthias
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme

Posted on the users mailing list.