Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

JavaScript interpreters Jakub T. Jankiewicz (12 Feb 2021 08:25 UTC)
Re: JavaScript interpreters Marc Feeley (12 Feb 2021 12:31 UTC)
Re: JavaScript interpreters Jakub T. Jankiewicz (12 Feb 2021 14:07 UTC)
Re: JavaScript interpreters Marc Feeley (12 Feb 2021 14:54 UTC)
Re: JavaScript interpreters Jakub T. Jankiewicz (12 Feb 2021 17:38 UTC)
How to classify Scheme implementations on Scheme.org Lassi Kortela (14 Feb 2021 07:52 UTC)
Re: How to classify Scheme implementations on Scheme.org Jakub T. Jankiewicz (14 Feb 2021 09:12 UTC)
Re: How to classify Scheme implementations on Scheme.org Lassi Kortela (14 Feb 2021 09:34 UTC)
Re: How to classify Scheme implementations on Scheme.org Marc Feeley (14 Feb 2021 12:54 UTC)
Re: How to classify Scheme implementations on Scheme.org Arthur A. Gleckler (14 Feb 2021 15:45 UTC)
Re: How to classify Scheme implementations on Scheme.org Jakub T. Jankiewicz (14 Feb 2021 16:23 UTC)
Re: How to classify Scheme implementations on Scheme.org Marc Feeley (14 Feb 2021 17:13 UTC)
Re: How to classify Scheme implementations on Scheme.org Lassi Kortela (15 Feb 2021 22:11 UTC)
Re: How to classify Scheme implementations on Scheme.org Lassi Kortela (15 Feb 2021 22:22 UTC)
Re: How to classify Scheme implementations on Scheme.org Marc Feeley (15 Feb 2021 22:36 UTC)
Re: How to classify Scheme implementations on Scheme.org Lassi Kortela (15 Feb 2021 22:40 UTC)
Re: How to classify Scheme implementations on Scheme.org Marc Feeley (15 Feb 2021 22:31 UTC)

Re: How to classify Scheme implementations on Scheme.org Jakub T. Jankiewicz 14 Feb 2021 16:22 UTC

My implementation don't yet have tail calls and first class continuations.
But considering this I will add them to version 1.0 I was planing on adding
it later. I can wait for adding my implementation into scheme.org after they
are added. I was starting adding those but didn't finished, it was quite a
while ago and because of conflicts in git I think I just delete the branch
where I was working on it and start again.

Anyway my implementation is in 1.0 beta, and default version is really old
(the copyright note indicate that it's from 2019). So I can wait in adding it
to scheme.org when it's finally released (I will make sure that TCO and
call/cc is there before release final 1.0).

But BiwaScheme can be safely named Scheme, because it have all fundamentals
(but macros are only lisp kind). It also lack lot of features though. It's
fast implementation, because it's kind of byte compiled and run on VM written
in JavaScript. But if the RnRS labels should be added only for full support
(or major part) then maybe it should be marked as R5RS (but without
syntax-rules). There is issue on GitHub for that feature though, maybe it
will be implemented.

Jakub

On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 07:45:04 -0800
"Arthur A. Gleckler" <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 4:54 AM Marc Feeley <xxxxxx@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > For the record, I am all for inclusiveness and think it is good to put as
> > many implementations on the site as possible.  What I want to avoid is the
> > misuse of the RnRS labels.  The RnRS labels should have a meaning,
> > especially on any web site that aims to promote “Scheme”.
> >
>
> I agree.  For example, none of the "RnRS" tags should be used to describe a
> Scheme that does not have full tail-call elimination.  Not having that
> means that many programs written in Scheme simply won't work.
>
> Using a numeric score to evaluate Schemes based on features beyond the
> standard seems fine, but we shouldn't use it for features that are supposed
> to be part of the language.

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