I am posting this as an individual member of the Scheme community. I am not speaking for the R6RS editors, and this message should not be confused with the editors' eventual formal response.
Matthias Felleisen wrote: > 2. Naturally I don't reject type systems per se but I think that a serious > language definition shouldn't introduce such systems without specifying > them. Otherwise a language/implementation will appear whimsical to > programmers. The current draft already mandates hundreds of runtime exceptions whose whimsical purpose is to make programs that violate the requirements of the R6RS less likely to run to completion. Why should that kind of whimsy be limited to run time? Will _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
