Scheme Programming Language :: The new "syntax-case" library in r6rs


	The new "syntax-case" library in r6rs Does anyone know if any existing scheme implementations have an r6rs compatible imiplementation of syntax-case. I'm playing with DrScheme, and it has syntax-case, but I don't know if it is r6rs compliant, or something else. I am implementing my own syntax-case library and would like something to compare behavior against. Brian. > Does anyone know if any existing scheme implementations have an r6rs > compatible imiplementation of syntax-case. I'm playing with DrScheme, > and it has syntax-case, but I don't know if it is r6rs compliant, or > something else. I am implementing my own syntax-case library and would > like something to compare behavior against. > Brian. It is too soon to speak of R6RS compliance, inasmuch as the R6RS will not actually exist as such until it is ratified, if then. It would be reasonable for you to assume that the behavior of syntax-case in DrScheme is likely to resemble the specification of syntax-case in the current draft R6RS, although the behavior of syntax-case in Chez Scheme or either of the reference implementations [1,2] might be even closer to what is described by the current draft. Will [1] http://www.r6rs.org/refimpl/ [2] It appears to me that one cannot navigate to [1] by following links from the main www.r6rs.org page. My complaints about this have been ineffectual. William D Clinger wrote: > It is too soon to speak of R6RS compliance, inasmuch as > the R6RS will not actually exist as such until it is ratified, > if then. It would be reasonable for you to assume that the > behavior of syntax-case in DrScheme is likely to resemble > the specification of syntax-case in the current draft R6RS, True enough, and to be expected. I was hoping someone might be able to say something like "the r6rs spec was based on the xxxxx implementation". Oh well - I guess if I make it work like DrScheme, then at least I won't be all alone in my interpretation... Thanks. Brian. -- William D Clinger wrote: > [1] http://www.r6rs.org/refimpl/ > [2] It appears to me that one cannot navigate to [1] by > following links from the main www.r6rs.org page. My > complaints about this have been ineffectual. The link in question was temporarily removed when the 5.93 version of the report was published last week. It has now been restored. Anton Anton van Straaten wrote concerning http://www.r6rs.org/: > The link in question was temporarily removed when the 5.93 version of > the report was published last week. It has now been restored. Perhaps I was complaining to the wrong people. Who is acting as webmaster for that site? Will William D Clinger wrote: > Anton van Straaten wrote concerning http://www.r6rs.org/: >>The link in question was temporarily removed when the 5.93 version of >>the report was published last week. It has now been restored. > Perhaps I was complaining to the wrong people. Who > is acting as webmaster for that site? My understanding is that the Steering Committee has ultimate authority over that site, but when it comes to posting material generated by the Editors' Committee, I have been performing that duty with the consent of both committees. I'll gladly handle any complaints in that area. Feedback about other material, e.g. related to the public review or ratification process, should be directed to the Steering Committee, however. I'll inquire about adding a feedback email address to the site. Regarding the temporary disappearance of the reference implementation link in this case, I am solely responsible: it was intended as a very temporary change, and it was an oversight that the link wasn't restored sooner. I apologize for that. Anton Anton van Straaten wrote: > My understanding is that the Steering Committee has ultimate authority > over that site, but when it comes to posting material generated by the > Editors' Committee, I have been performing that duty with the consent of > both committees. I'll gladly handle any complaints in that area. One thing you might be able to do, then, is to collect all of the historical documents such as revisions of the charter, drafts of the document, the status reports, et cetera, and put them all on a web page that we can get to from the main page. There should also be a web page that collects various announcements that the Steering Committee has made during the process. For example, I am told that my resignation from the Editors' Committee has been announced, but I haven't seen the announcement myself and would like to cite it. Just yesterday, someone who thought I was still an editor asked when the editors would get around to posting an archive of their email conversations since September 2006. I agreed with him that it's time for that archive to be made public, but I understand you can't do that on your own authority. Will William D Clinger wrote: > One thing you might be able to do, then, is to collect > all of the historical documents such as revisions of > the charter, drafts of the document, the status reports, > et cetera, and put them all on a web page that we can > get to from the main page. I've added links to the previous drafts of the document at the bottom of the page at http://www.r6rs.org/ . Many of the other historical documents are still available at their original location, at: http://www.schemers.org/Documents/Standards/Charter/ I'll inquire about integrating this material with the pages at r6rs.org. > There should also be a web page that collects various > announcements that the Steering Committee has made > during the process. For example, I am told that my > resignation from the Editors' Committee has been > announced, but I haven't seen the announcement myself > and would like to cite it. Afaik, that's Steering Committee business, which I am not involved in. I'm not aware of any public announcement. > Just yesterday, someone who thought I was still an > editor asked when the editors would get around to > posting an archive of their email conversations since > September 2006. I agreed with him that it's time for > that archive to be made public, but I understand you > can't do that on your own authority. I believe that the editors have agreed to do this (or none have objected), and this archive should be made public in the next few days. Anton William D Clinger wrote: > It is too soon to speak of R6RS compliance, inasmuch as > the R6RS will not actually exist as such until it is ratified, > if then. I just noticed this. It does seem true that R6RS is running a larger risk than any report in history of failure to exist after ratification. That is to say, if people don't adopt it, then it ain't a standard no matter what the committee says. Bear Ray Dillinger wrote: > That is to say, if people don't adopt it, then it ain't a > standard no matter what the committee says. True. I think that if R6RS is ratified, it will be adopted by many implementations (some of which matter a lot). I don't speak for Matthew or Kent but I expect that MzScheme and Chez will both support R6RS (or a large subset of R6RS) in a very short time after it is ratified. There is also Brian C Barnes who said he has an implementation with most of R5.93RS. I also have most of R5.93RS implemented in Ikarus (not available for public consumption yet). Will Clinger also talks of Spanky. Success of R6RS depends for the most part on the ratification process (IMHO) and not on post-ratification adoption. Aziz,,, Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote: > Will Clinger also talks of Spanky. Not to mention D'Argo and Grayza. The draft R6RS contains a lot of good stuff that is worth incorporating into R5RS-conforming systems even if the R6RS is never ratified. We're putting that stuff into Larceny at a rapid rate. If the R6RS is ratified, we intend to add the not-so-good stuff as well, without abandoning the R5RS legacy. > Success of R6RS depends for the most part on the ratification > process (IMHO) and not on post-ratification adoption. Agreed. If the R6RS is ratified, I expect several R6RS-compatible implementations will be available within a month after ratification is announced, and I expect five to ten R6RS-conforming systems within the first year. That would be a more rapid pace of adoption than we saw with the R5RS. It's harder to predict what will happen if the R6RS is not ratified, but I trust the Steering Committee would find a way to salvage something from the debacle. Will