Fri, 23 May 97 12:33:54 +0200
Chris Bitmead uid <firstname.lastname@example.org> (x22068) wrote:
> I'd like to second the proposition that we should consider RScheme and
> Texas PS. Everytime I hear about RScheme it sounds like it's got 90%
> of what I want, and actually seems to have been the Right Thing(tm)
> from the start.
> What does everybody think? It would provide a good kick along in
> getting this project up to speed.
Sounds good; it would certainly be a better foundation for various
"novel" ideas discussed around here, than adapting a more complex
Common Lisp (with its much tighter specification) to these ideas -
particularly since RScheme was designed to allow other languages
than Scheme to be implemented, and is supposed to provide feedback
between the compiler and macros (I'm not sure how much of that is
already implemented). RScheme is objected oriented, and the lowest
layer is even strongly typed, with appropriate dynamic checks or
conversions generated by the front end where the concrete type has
not been inferred. This would be helpful for low-level programming.
I've sent Paul Wilson a short note about this discussion.
-- Marc Wachowitz <email@example.com>