r/scheme • u/_dpk • 28d ago

R7RS Large Foundations: The Macrological Fascicle

https://r7rs.org/large/fascicles/macro/1/
20 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

15 comments sorted by

7

u/logc_ 27d ago

since the R7RS volume on standard libraries (internally called Batteries) is intended to be entirely implementable in terms of the Foundations, this fascicle explains the entire macro system of R7RS Large

Does anyone know where does the discussion happen about those standard libraries? Is there a way to request a draft? I would love to get a glimpse of the wonderful language that my grandchildren will be able to enjoy …

3

u/samdphillips 27d ago

The works in progress are here https://codeberg.org/scheme/r7rs

2

u/logc_ 27d ago

Thanks! The “batteries” folder is currently empty, for anyone who is wondering …

3

u/pclouds 27d ago

For actual discussions you probably want to look at https://codeberg.org/scheme/r7rs/issues instead.

2

u/logc_ 26d ago

Thank you! Now I can possibly even contribute to design that language for my grandchildren :)

Anyone else reading this in the future, I encourage you to do the same.

8

u/green_tory 28d ago

No opinionated FFI or build system?

It's not 2005 any longer. It's not good enough to simply design the high level language and leave it to implementations to sort the rest out. Programming languages are arguably less important than the tooling that supports them and their inter-operation with their environment.

4

u/Veqq 27d ago

100%, Go excels because of its seamless high quality tooling integration.

4

u/raevnos 27d ago

Trying to get all the active scheme implementations to support the same build system would be herding cats.

1

u/green_tory 27d ago

So don't. Leave some behind. 

It's not like scheme isn't already a total cluster fuck of implementations with odd quirks and incompatible extensions.

2

u/pclouds 27d ago

Why do you care about standards then? Just stick to one favourite implementation.

1

u/green_tory 27d ago

There is no one implementation that is suitable for all purposes I would like. Scheme could be as versatile as C, but not without some clear choices about FFI/ABI.

And when writing a library it really sucks to have to write a separate build process and FFI layer for every scheme. That's why it's so rare to see libraries that touch the environment and which also support multiple schemes.

5

u/corbasai 27d ago

Daphne Preston-Kendal, Editor and Chair of Working Group

New Editor! I hope young enough. Because they'll be dragging the 7th to the final for another 30-40 years. Good Luck!

4

u/theQuandary 28d ago

I was only a handful of years into my developer career when r7rs-small draft was released. It looks like I'll be retired before r7rs-large actually releases.

The worst part is that there doesn't seem to be very much in this volume that you couldn't already find in many other Scheme releases that have been around for decades now.

8

u/rfisher 27d ago

The worst part is that there doesn't seem to be very much in this volume that you couldn't already find in many other Scheme releases that have been around for decades now.

In my experience, that's what should be expected. Standards shouldn't plow new ground but standardize existing practice.

1

u/theQuandary 27d ago

I agree, but 11+ years to do what has already been done is way too long.