On Feb 23, Guillermo J. Rozas wrote:
>
> At any rate, I suspect that there are ways in which I would be happy
> to evolve the language and that you would not.
>
> For example, I like facilities for introspection and reflection.
> The Lisp dialects that I've used (especially MIT Scheme) have had
> them. Hackers used them continuously. The debugger was written in
> the language and was live, and not some external process.
And you suspect that I wouldn't be happy using all that based on...?
(What *I* will be happy with happens to be an area where I'm an
absolute world expert. You suspect wrong.)
> But for some reason, the RnRs committees always considered those outside
> the scope of the reports.
[It would be good to at least think why they left it out. The fact
that all of them use systems with such facilities is a good indication
that they're not objecting to it.]
> So whether I want to push it forward (or used to) or not is an issue
> of whether you care about the things that I care about and vice
> versa.
[That doesn't even parse right.]
> >> No. I didn't say that. I said "don't ruin it". I didn't say
> >> that you had to go out of your way in that direction.
> >
> > You keep repeating this; yet it's a non argument. There is a very
> > clear mirror of this: IMO, making the language case-sensitive is
> > improving it, so I *am* trying not to ruin it.
>
> But you are making it worse in that regard, as far as I'm concerned.
No, you are. (as far as I'm concerned)
> >> 1. You think I do not care about Scheme's future? Why would I
> >> even lurk on the list or respond to any posts?
> >
> > I seriously don't know. Everything you said points at R2RS being
> > your ideal; so why would you get involved in a mailing list where
> > people are discussing changes to a language that has already
> > changed since R2RS? That document is there, it will never change.
>
> I have not mentioned R2RS once, until this sentence.
OK, not R2RS -- some point in time, perhaps imaginary, where the jury
is still out on '() vs #f.
> And if it is, how is the truth damaging Scheme? Isn't it better to
> understand reality as it is, and act accordingly, than make up a
> reality and act according to that?
Your "truth" is part of what damages Scheme. Same goes for the
"truth" of "closures are hard", "GCs are slow and inefficient", "Lisp
is a huge monster".
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://www.barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
