Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!CS.CMU.EDU!clamen
From: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU ("Stewart M. Clamen")
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: What is a Scheme?
Message-ID: <9008221644.aa03978@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 22 Aug 90 20:41:49 GMT
References: <JINX.90Aug22122411@chamarti.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Reply-To: clamen+@cs.cmu.edu
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 32


   Date: 22 Aug 90 16:24:11 GMT
   From: "Guillermo J. Rozas" <snorkelwacker!ai-lab!zurich.ai.mit.edu!jinx@bloom-beacon.mit.edu>
   Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
   References: <TED.90Aug20125352@kythera.nmsu.edu>, <9008211445.AA02571@mozart.think.com>
   Sender: scheme-request@mc.lcs.mit.edu


       I regard all other data types, including numbers and strings,
       as entirely inessential to Scheme-ness.  The same goes for
       control structures (I'll just synthesize DELAY and FORCE
       myself from closures and side effects).

       So there is one opinion.  Let's hear some others.

   I agree.  Especially since the language is such that even numbers and
   strings (and pairs, etc.) can be built out of the very powerful glue
   of procedures.

   The great thing about Scheme is that the glue is so good that you
   hardly need anything else.  Everything else is convenience.

   To me the core of Scheme is [lambda,set!,quote].

I remember asking at one of the IEEE standardization meetings whether
a Scheme-like language with no numbers other than the Wholes (Church
numerals?) could fit within the Standard.  It might have been a rush
to consolidate opinion, but I don't remember anyone else thinking it
was worth considering.


						SMC