>> As I said, you are using the wrong tool. >> >> It's not the way that I would do it or have done it. > > Please demonstrate how you would do that, in a way that always works > (reliably = no code auto-changing), and automatically.
I already outlined it. Please re-read prior messages. You may not like it. That's your prerogative. > If it's not a warning, then please explain what you mean. What I rule > out is any post-loading or post-expansion warnings that make me go > back and edit my sources. You must have some other way to (hopefully) > skip the editing. I don't see any point in continuing this. If you don't understand it by this point., I can't help you. > Yes, of course! In most Scheme's it is easy to specify identifiers > with spaces -- using bars; it's not convenient though. The question > is: what wasn't it made more convenient? > > I really see no problem in making Scheme *practical*. It is an > extreme blessing for me to have a *practical* language, given how I > *practice* it every day. If all I've cared about was teaching, then > I'd be happy with a language standard that would make R[2345]RS look > in comparison like CLtL. I am all in favor of making Scheme practical. I am not in favor of making Scheme conform to some external standard when other simple solutions to the purported problem are available. >> So? It's what people are used to when dealing with computers. >> >> There are far more computer users out there than programmers. > > There are far more people than there are computer users too, so what? > The identifiers in my code have nothing to do with them either. But to be a computer programmer, you have to be a computer user[*]. Since to be a computer user, you must already be used to a case- insensitive file system, making the language case-insensitive presents no new mechanisms. The opposite (making it case sensitive) is different. [*] Yes, it is possible to write programs and never use a computer. But that's effectively a set of measure zero. >> And hence not very reliable, is it? > > No, not very reliable. Still infinitely more indicative than anything > you've brought up so far. Have you heard of 'sample bias'? I'm quite sure that this poll suffered from it. >> Where's the analysis of the methodology? > > (The methodology was, BTW, to ask a question on a mailing list that > had many people who cared about the future of Scheme.) But you generalized it to 'most users'. Clearly at most a minority of users cares about the future of Scheme. And of that minority, clearly an even smaller minority is on any given mailing list and paying attention at any given time. Perfect example of 'sample bias'. >>>> And even a majority is a weak argument here. >>> >>> Why? Most of *us* -- active Scheme users, apparently liked the >>> change. >> >> Really? Most active Scheme users answered the poll? >> >> And, if you wanted to make Scheme more C-ish in other ways, and a >> majority wanted the change, does that mean that it should be done? > > The kind of majority that would be needed is one of the issues that > was discussed recently -- but yes, that's exactly the idea. And what majority was used to decide this on R6RS? Certainly not your poll. And given that most editors of R6RS left in disgust, that doesn't give me any confidence that there was agreement on this or almost any other topic even amongst them, or that the process was the clean democratic process that you present it to be. > That's not saying that Scheme is going to turn into C -- it just > happens that the case issue turns out to be not as central to the > "spirit of Scheme" as you make it to be to most people. If the > language was perfect as is, then what's the point of this mailing > list? I have never said that it is central or essential. Neither is my right arm to my being a human or a person. That doesn't mean that I would want to lose it. >> Let those people defend their arguments. They are no doubt around. > > They do the sane thing -- ignore this ridiculous thread. Even more > than that: they use an implementation where the choice of case doesn't > matter. (Not because the implementation will not conform as a matter > of atatement; but because in that implementation implementing a case > sensitive language is nearly trivial. And not needed, since it's > already there.) Well, then forgive me for ignoring their authority. I have only your word to believe that they gave it great thought, as opposed to not caring about it, or being philosophically so inclined, as you seem to be. And again, I would take their 'authority' no better than I would take Marx's or Engels'. Not that I'm accusing them of being ideologues. But I think that you get my point. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
