Re: [r6rs-discuss] Implementors' intentions concerning R6RS

[Neil Jerram]

Many thanks for your quick response, and I appreciate your kind words
about Guile.  The specific issue that I mentioned is still present in
1.4.1, so if you've tried running the r5rs_pitfalls test with 1.4.1,
it would fail for at least that reason; and I suspect there may be a
couple of other issues that we've fixed since then.

In case you do come across any R5 issues with the current Guile
(1.8.x), please do let us know, as we really do want Guile to be
R5RS-compliant.

FWIW, my feeling about R6 as a whole is that it is not aligned with
Guile's objective - remembering that the latter is not just to be a
Scheme implementation, but a Scheme implementation in the form of an
embeddable library that is useful for extending applications.  But my
thoughts on this haven't fully crystallised yet.

Regards,
        Neil


Elf <address@hidden> writes:

> for what its worth, i still start people off on guile 1.4.1 when i teach them
> because a) the help system is excellent, b) i can show it to them in action
> via scwm, and c) i have a very fond spot for guile, as its the first real
> scheme implementation i used.  most of my students have also found it to be
> the easiest and most comfortable to work in initially.  i did not mean
> to offend or give misinformation about the current state of guile.  my
> most sincere apologies.
>
> -elf
>
>
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, Neil Jerram wrote:
>
>> Elf <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> (i usually start people off with guile nowadays,
>>> despite its non-r5 compliance, as the wizard book is still around r4 
>>> material.)
>>
>> I hope you don't mind me emailing you in response to your r6rs post;
>> I'm one of the Guile developers.
>>
>> I wondered if you could say more about the r5-non-compliance that you
>> perceive?  I thought we had solved all r5 compliance issues by now.
>>
>> (Last time I heard it claimed that Guile was not r5-compliant, I
>> followed it up, and it was to do with a couple of tests relying on the
>> order of evaluation of letrec initializers.  But that is fixed now.)
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>     Neil
>>