[Larceny-users] speculation about R6RS and Larceny

[William D Clinger]

TJ wrote:
> Ah so you're planning on implementing R6RS.

We are considering the possibility.  As yet,
there is no R6RS anyone could implement.

> I can't remember what was
> in the draft specification, but it seemed the R6RS module system would
> be very much "static". No top-level defines and such... I hope this
> doesn't make things difficult for people like me who would like to
> program interactively, rather than edit-compile-run a bunch of text
> files.

The draft R6RS says nothing about interactive
programming, so it would not constrain Larceny's
interactive semantics in any way.  On the other
hand, I expect some parts of the R6RS semantics
will be better (or at least better standardized)
than what Larceny is doing now, and it makes
sense for Larceny to implement those parts of
the R6RS.  Unicode is a good example.

We might also implement an R6RS-conforming mode,
but right now no one can know what that means.

> But perhaps that discussion would be better carried out in the
> r6rs list...

Yes, if your goal is to influence the R6RS.  If
your goal is to discuss the future of Larceny
with other users of Larceny, then this is the
right place.

Will