>> 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.)
I'm glad you like that sort of thing. And you are right. I had no evidence to suppose that. But in the past, that sort of thing has been the kind of thing that people most objected to even considering for a report. I'm glad that I'm wrong on that one. >> 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.] Well, perhaps things have changed. At the time, concerns about being able to compile were raised as reasons not to have such facilities. >> 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.] I'm sorry that you don't understand. Please re-read it. >>>> 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) I am not doing anything. I'm objecting to a change that, in my eyes, was made without enough consideration for backwards compatibility and users. Clearly you don't welcome my opinion in this process. >>>> 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. Some time around IEEE and R5RS, and just on that issue. >> 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". I asked you two questions. You didn't answer either. You merely re-state that my acknowledging the truth is damaging. I really, really, don't understand what you are saying. Either you disagree that what I've said is the truth, but have provided no evidence to the contrary (and unlike the benefit of case sensitivity, which is subjective, this is a matter of fact, so we should be able to resolve it), or are objecting to my mere statement of the truth, which I would find very odd. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
