[ERR5RS] Bindings in R5RS vs R6RS

[Lynn Winebarger]

On 9/15/07, AndrevanTonder <andre at het.brown.edu> wrote:
>
> 1) One should give a simple characterization, as close to R5RS as
>     possible, of portable programs whose meaning is the same in /both/
>     dynamic and compiler-based systems.
>
     Can you identify some compiler-based systems that would be faced
with serious hardship by forcing REPL semantics?   Will has said
features should pay their own way.  Maintaining this ambiguity has a
cost (e.g. it makes "low-level" macros practically unportable), and
R5RS has not been taken off the table.  Even if it had, I'd say this
proposal would at least nominally fall under the "minimal changes
required to accomplish extension goals" rubric.
      Authors who do not want REPL semantics always have the option of
writing their program as a single letrec (or letrec-syntax enclosing a
letrec).  Authors who want REPL semantics would need to rewrite their
program to a much greater extent.

Lynn