Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!aiai.edinburgh.ac.UK!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.edinburgh.ac.UK (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: Scheme as an extension language and call/cc
Message-ID: <29638.9008292029@subnode.aiai.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 29 Aug 90 20:29:47 GMT
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 24

> >Before resorting to the "Scheme without call/cc is not Scheme"
> >argument (with which I quite agree), ...
> 
> Yes, yes, yes!
> 
> This point was raised during one of the IEEE Scheme Standard meetings.
> My recollection of the majority view at that meeting was that having
> e.g. Level 0 Scheme [without call/cc]..Level-N Scheme [full numeric
> tower+] was that it would cloud the issue of "What do you get when you
> get a Standard Scheme implementation?". 

This is the question of whether the IEEE std should have layers of a
certain sort, *not* whether a language w/o call/cc should be called
"Scheme".

Note that they way standards usually work is that implementations
can differ from the std provided that the differences are documented.

> If you have Scheme with Catch & Throw, but without Call/CC, *don't* call
> it "Scheme" [How about "Sub-Scheme"  8^].

I would rather have langauges w/o call/cc called "Scheme" than have
lose out to other languages because it must always implement full
call/cc.