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

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