[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Scheme-reports] initial results of implementor intentions poll
- To: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
- Subject: [Scheme-reports] initial results of implementor intentions poll
- From: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>
- Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:53:05 +0900
Earlier I sent out a poll to the major Scheme implementors
regarding their intention towards the R7RS small language, based
on the third draft. I'm still waiting on some people, but in
time for the workshop I thought I'd summarize the replies we've
received so far.
Will Clinger makes the following statement for Larceny:
The implementors of Larceny wish to support all relevant
standards for Scheme. Larceny currently implements the
official ANSI/IEEE standard and the de facto R5RS and
R6RS standards, plus an ERR5RS mode for development,
debugging, and execution of R6RS code in a read/eval/print
loop. We look forward to implementing an R7RS standard
and hope it will unify or replace most or all of the
standards that Larceny currently supports.
Unfortunately I didn't think to ask everyone for a formal
statement to quote, so I'll just summarize the responses and
paraphrase where necessary. Implementors, please feel free to
correct me or add clarifications or longer statements.
The following all intend to support R7RS small:
* Per Bothner (Kawa)
* Will Clinger (Larceny)
* Shiro Kawai (Gauche)
* Manuel Serrano (Bigloo) - "not sure about libraries"
* Alex Shinn (Chibi) - "already fully implemented, but lacking tests"
* Felix Winkelmann (Chicken)
The following were less committal, but open, and their
implementations are flexible enough to implement R7RS in
* Kent Dybvig (Chez) - "if it's as simple as you say I don't see why not"
* Matthew Flatt (Racket) - "if there's sufficient user demand"
* Andy Wingo (Guile) - "probably"
The following are simply unable to implement R7RS or uninterested
* Taylor Campbell (MIT) - "MIT lacks the infrastructure for modules"
* Jonathan Shapiro (TinyScheme) - thinks call/cc should be removed
* Jeffery Mark Siskind (Stalin) - "no longer working on Stalin"
* Michael Sperber (Scheme48) - "no time even for R6RS"
No one refused to implement based on the content of the standard,
or cited any features as showstoppers.
Scheme-reports mailing list