Paul Schlie wrote:
personally, an optimizing compiler should honor all language semantics
Thomas Lord wrote:
Adapting one's programming environment to the domain, and
preserving and improving the ability to do so, seem central to
lisp, to me. Standards have important roles but, mostly in the
area of establishing a common vocabulary.
I agree, however if sequentially is fundamental to a core language's
semantics, I don't believe it can be reasonably compromised without
fundamentally compromising the integrity and utility of its corresponding
derivative languages; as although programs operating on purely synthetic
data are useful, ignoring those which rely on the timing/sequentially of
logical events would severely limit its practical utility in many
application domains. (in my opinion and experience)
And, not to change the subject, but it occurs to me that some people
might be interpreting your comments as an assertion that all circles
have four corners, and Joe's comments an assertion that only pink
Unicorns are commonly found in Wyoming.
I am well prepared to present arguments that, in fact, circles have
no corners at all and that, long ago, green Unicorns drove the pink
variety to extinction. I'm not sure how to raise the topic in the form
of an argument, though. We could switch to name-calling, if that
would help... [I might have that backwards, perhaps it's Joe talking
about circles and you about Unicorns. No offense intended, either way.]
And, yes, now I'm boring even myself,
-t
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
