Anonymous user
Category talk:Racket: Difference between revisions
→racket IS scheme: UNIX Shell... C Shell...
(→racket IS scheme: UNIX Shell... C Shell...) |
|||
Line 8:
::Scheme is defined [http://www.scheme-reports.org/ here] in form of reports. the latest of which is [http://www.r6rs.org/ R6RS]. Racket [http://docs.racket-lang.org/r6rs/ implements R6RS].
::as for your question i think for rosettacode the answer may be different than for other places. i think it is beneficial to have all scheme dialects in one place for easier comparison.--[[User:EMBee|eMBee]] 10:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
::: Racket's documentation, at [http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/dialects.html Dialects of Racket and Scheme], claims that Racket and R6RS are different dialects: "beware that the syntactic forms and functions of R6RS differ from Racket." Among the contributors to Rosetta Code, the authors of Racket and Scheme examples should decide whether Racket is Scheme, or Racket is a separate language. A page like [[24 game]] should not have a Racket section and also, at the same time, have "PLT Scheme" in its Scheme section.
::: Rosetta Code removed "Category:Bash" and "Category:Korn Shell", because those are implementations of [[:Category:UNIX Shell]], not separate languages. I am currently emptying "Category:Zsh" for the same reason. This is good because I can write one program at [[Primality by trial division#UNIX Shell]] to work with [[Bash]], [[Korn Shell]] and [[Z Shell]]. However, I also created [[:Category:C Shell]] as a separate category. I still want to group C Shell with UNIX Shell, so I always put a subsection <code><nowiki>==={{header|C Shell}}===</nowiki></code> under section <code><nowiki>=={{header|UNIX Shell}}==</nowiki></code>. --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 04:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
| |||