Talk:Scheme 48

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 December 2011. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Doesn't follow R5RS

Seems that Scheme 48 doesn't follow R5RS very well, despite what home page says. F.ex. function first isn't implemented, but instead car, and (car '(a b c d e)) doesn't return a but 'a, which, whatever it is, is neither LISP nor Scheme. Said: Rursus ☻ 19:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, first is not required by R5RS,[1] and even if it were, its omission from Scheme 48 would be a very minor deviation from the standard as it can be trivially defined by (define first car). The result of (car '(a b c d e)) is printed as 'a on the Scheme 48 command line, however, (eq? (car '(a b c d)) 'a) evaluates to #t, so Scheme 48 is certainly conforming in that point, too. —Tobias Bergemann 07:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "first" is not a part of R5RS. Check the index. Also, "'a" is a relatively standard way to print the symbol that is the result of "(car '(a b c))". Clements (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for Name

I thought that was once where the name came from, but now it's because it can be understood in 48 hours. Watson Ladd (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License

I replaced the software infobox license of "BSD"; my mistake was to remove it initially. I attach the authors' COPY file in the source distribution, below. It definitely seems to fall under BSD licenses, as a "3-clause license". --Ds13 (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright (c) 1993-2008 Richard Kelsey and Jonathan Rees
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
   documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. The name of the authors may not be used to endorse or promote products
   derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.