John Cowan wrote: > > When you actually implement this stuff, you will discover > > quite a few dark corners that make the above issues look > > simple. > > Please tell us about them.
I (and many others) have already described quite a few. After the official R6RS document is published, when it will be easier to tell the difference between typos and deliberate mistakes, I will compile a list of the deliberate mistakes, including those that have already been described. I'll have to do this anyway when I make a list of the R6RS misfeatures that are deprecated in Larceny. As a concrete example, let me refer you to the editors' response to formal comment #148. If you still don't understand what is wrong with the editors' response, I suggest you write a few programs that use the R6RS API for string output ports, and compare them against the same programs modified to use SRFI-6 string output ports. You will discover that the SRFI-6 API composes elegantly with the R6RS's own call-with-port, while the R6RS API for string output ports does not. That is one of the less important examples, of course, but it illustrates the editors' tendency to make design decisions without actual experience, systematic thought, or attention to the principles laid down by the opening sentences of the R6RS introduction, meanwhile ignoring well-established SRFIs that are widely implemented, widely used, and known to work well. Will _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
