Elf wrote: > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, David Van Horn wrote: > >> Brian Harvey wrote: >>> We now have the macro tail wagging the Scheme dog. >> >> Other than the absence of a specified REPL semantics in R6RS (which >> appears to be an omission that can be addressed by a SRFI or future >> Scheme standard), I don't see evidence of this. >> >> Could you be more specific? > > http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/R6RS/essay.txt
Perhaps the syntactic record layer has design flaws, but I do not see how these flaws arise from the presence of macro definition facilities in Scheme. In other words, I can imagine an R6RS without macros but with the syntactic record layer as currently designed. So I fail to see how this is evidence of "the macro tail wagging the Scheme dog." Please correct me if I have misunderstood. David _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
