[plt-scheme] Is R6RS useless for PLT?

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




On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:12 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