It have partial support, that's why I didn't said it have full RnRS support.

In LIPS I'm going to add the rest of the R7RS in version 1.0, without tail
calls and continuations, that I'm going to add maybe in version 1.1.

BiwaScheme is used in repl.it and it's pretty known Scheme implementation
even if it don't have full R7RS support (the website mention R6RS and R7RS).

If you want you don't need to write word R7RS if you think that it don't
deserve it. You can write R5RS if you prefer, but continuations are required
by the standard so you will also not be able to say that those implementation
have even R5RS support.

If you would say that only 100% of the spec can have name of the spec then
you could not call LIPS Scheme.

Are all implementations from implementations.scheme.org have everything
required by the standard?

You can write any RnRS spec that is fully suported, in case if LIPS there
would probably none because of tail calls.

Regards
Jakub

On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 07:31:09 -0500
Marc Feeley <xxxxxx@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

> > On Feb 12, 2021, at 3:25 AM, Jakub T. Jankiewicz <xxxxxx@onet.pl> wrote:
> >
> > His implementation is R6RS R7RS and it's bytecode interpreter, but in
> > JavaScript.
> >
> > Mine is R5RS R7RS tree walking interpreter also in JavaScript.
>
> The last time I checked Biwascheme was missing quite a few R7RS features
> (define-library, import, define-syntax, exception handling, bytevectors,
> mutable strings, advanced I/O, etc).  Similarly lips is lacking proper tail
> calls, continuations, define-library, import, etc.
>
> So can I ask you how you define conformance to R7RS?
>
> Marc
>
>

--
Jakub T. Jankiewicz, Web Developer
https://jcubic.pl/me