I thought the Great Compromise of R7RS was to have specifications for both a small and a large language, so that everyone is happy (or at least equally mad :-)) . Isn't the difference with R6RS that R7RS-large draws extensively on SRFIs which are indeed attempts to codify existing practices?
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 5:15 PM Per Bothner <p...@bothner.com> wrote: > > On 1/16/19 6:27 AM, John Cowan wrote: > > So what is happening is that people are voting for more rather than less, > > as with the Red Edition. This encourages me that I'm going in a sensible > > direction with the large language. > > For the record, I'm extremely leery of the more-is-better approach. > We seem to be adding a large number of very large APIs, which seems > to be contrary to the Scheme ideal of small well-chosen primitives > that work synergistic well together. People were unhappy with R6RS > because of its size and that so much of it was invention rather than > codifying existing practice. R7RS-large is the same - but much more so. > -- > --Per Bothner > p...@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/ > _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
