[plt-scheme] Re: Should PLT Scheme have two R6RS namespaces?

From: Martin DeMello (martindemello at gmail.com)
Date: Sun Apr 19 21:57:36 EDT 2009

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Martin DeMello <martindemello at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
>> On Mar 23, detmammut at googlemail.com wrote:
>>> I had a discussion with eli on this allready in IRC. The problem is
>>> not so much that these R6RS replacements are not available*, but
>>> that someone has to step up to provide test-cases and support. I'll
>>> have a week or two a free time starting april so I will port (the
>>> testcases for) srfi-1 (unless someone else is faster :)
>>> * see https://code.launchpad.net/~ikarus-libraries-team/ikarus-libraries/srfi
>> What I also said is that dragging a big piece of code like that,
>> rather than adapting existing code, is very problematic.
> Isn't one of the points of R6RS that you should be able to do this?

Anyone? I'm curious about this, because back when R6RS was being
debated, one of the points that got raised was that it would allow
libraries to be portable across scheme implementations. Was that
abandoned as one of the goals (did I misunderstand it in the first
place?) or did R6RS just not deliver on the promise?


Posted on the users mailing list.