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

From: Robby Findler (robby at cs.uchicago.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 25 11:48:48 EST 2008

Its time for me to tune of this conversation, but I think that Sam
overstates the case a little bit. I'm sure there are modules that are
interesting that could be ported.


On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:43 AM,  <kbohdan at mail.ru> wrote:
> Sam TH wrote:
> <snip>
>> I really suggest you look at the paper.  Typed Scheme doesn't rely on
>> PLT specific extensions in the sense of an extra function here or
>> there.  It relies fundamentally on aspects of the PLT macro and module
>> system that do not have analogues in the R6RS (such as the language
>> position and #%module-begin).  PLT Scheme, in a sense, *is* the
>> extension needed to implement Typed Scheme.
>> I think this really gets to the heart of the question under
>> discussion.  Some small modules in PLT Scheme could be ported to R6RS
>> (scheme/bool, for example).  But virtually anything that would be
>> interesting relies fundamentally on the extensions that we've
>> developed, and that we don't want to sacrifice in the name of
>> portability.  We do not see PLT as simply a mechanism for developing
>> potential extensions to the R6RS.
> Thanks. Your answer greatly clarifies situation.
> --
> Bohdan
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme

Posted on the users mailing list.