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 quoting me: > > (I am discounting portability somewhat, > > because absolute portability is a lost cause in the > > presence of low-level macros.) > > Ah, your true face is coming through. > > From what I can tell, you want a language report for compiler > writers. Put differently, you want a rough outline of a language, > with lots of freedom to implement whatever is easy or interesting, > depending on the inclinations of the compiler writer. And I thought I was lamenting the damage done by low-level macros and one of their consequences, the implementation-dependent choice of semantics for library phasing. Shows what I know. Will _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
