[plt-scheme] Smallest set of operators

Ha! X is definable in Scheme, of course!

You asked for references -- now go chase them!

On 2/2/07, Paulo J. Matos <pocm at soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 2/2/07, Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 2, 2007, at 7:36 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> >
> > > On 2/2/07, Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> 1. You need to specify what you mean with define.
> > >>
> > >
> > > define = implement.
> >
> >
> > This definition is naive. Just use ONE SINGLE combinator (X, see
> > Barendregt) and you can compile EVERY language to it. -- Matthias
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > So, you implement the set of scheme operators X.
> > > Scheme standard is built of operators in set Y. Question was: what's
> > > the minimal set X with which you can implement Y - X?
> > >
>
> Moreover, X would have to be part of Scheme for your answer to be
> correct under my assumptions. I asked for the set X _of scheme
> operators_.
>
> --
> Paulo Jorge Matos - pocm at soton.ac.uk
> http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/pocm
> PhD Student @ ECS
> University of Southampton, UK
> _________________________________________________
>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>