On Oct 30, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Pascal Costanza wrote: > > On 30 Oct 2007, at 15:28, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > >> It is amusing to read these debates though I don't think >> it is productive in any way. Why don't we all spend time >> on producing R6RS or ERRR5RS compliant Scheme implementations >> and then use the feedback from these efforts to move forward? > > My impression is that some people think that R6RS already got a > number of fundamental design decisions wrong, even though they > could have be gotten right already. I guess it's not motivating to > fix conceptual bugs that, in their view, shouldn't be there in the > first place.
You are possibly right. But I am such an imperfect being that I actually need to get my hand on runnable code (i.e., work with a language and have others work with a language) before I can make such judgments. Back to code -- Matthias _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
