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

From: Doug Williams (m.douglas.williams at gmail.com)
Date: Mon Nov 24 10:31:56 EST 2008

When we were migrating to PLT Scheme 4.0 - well, I still am in some cases -
Matthew put together a guide that explained the differences and what we
would need to do to convert to V4.0.  Is there something similar for the
differences between PLT Scheme V4.0 and R6RS?  For my big packages like the
science and simulation collections, I separated out the graphics (which is
almost certainly not portable) and the base functionality (which probably
could be ported) when I developed them.  It hasn't been important for me to
convert them to R6RS since I obviously use PLT Scheme.

The science collection would probably be fairly easy to port.  It's rather
large, but it's pretty much just computational stuff - except for the
graphics, which are already separated.  The simulation collection uses some
things like parameters that I'm not sure are in R6RS - I honestly haven't
looked into it.

Is there a real advantage to the Scheme community at large or the PLT Scheme
community in general in creating R6RS versions of these packages?  Is it
possible, or better yet easy, to make a single package that is R6RS
compliant and plays well with PLT Scheme modules, etc?  Is there a good
example of such a thing?


On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Robby Findler <robby at cs.uchicago.edu>wrote:

> Folks,
>  At the risk of repeating myself, core PLT members have put in a huge
> amount of effort into R6RS already. I think it is time to stop telling
> us how more would be better and instead step up and contribute.
> Thanks,
> Robby
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20081124/a741d2b9/attachment.html>

Posted on the users mailing list.