On Mar 12, 2007, at 3:45 AM, Per Bothner wrote:
Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote:
Then I don't see how quoting that sentence was relevant to your
proposal. There is no weakness; and there is no pile of features
necessary to support what you want to do.
My proposal is for *removing a restriction*. Those quotes were
to show why my proposal should be adopted.
But you just showed how you *can* mix definitions and expressions:
On Mar 12, 2007, at 1:42 AM, Per Bothner wrote:
Right - you can replace
EXPR
by
(define UNUSED1 (begin EXPR (unspecified)))
which is what 5.92 does for top-level bodies.
So I don't count that as a restriction, only an inconvenience. And
just for the record, I'm not arguing against your proposal. I just
don't buy your rationale.
Aziz,,,
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
