On Mon, 2009-08-31 at 15:14 -0700, Joe Marshall wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Thomas Lord<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ok, so you're on some kind of juridical mission I guess. > > > > You're implementing some program of "surveille and punish" > > - that is, your exercise has the form of a power play. > > Yes, I wish to sit in judgement at the right hand of Sussman. > I am Robespierre and Torquemada. I seek Purity of Essence, > and proper theology and geometry in Scheme. > Look upon my spreadsheet, ye mighty, and despair!
Yes, yes, I think that confirms my contentions. > > > What's your goal? > > My immediate goal was to suggest that simply counting > the number of SRFIs that an implementation supports is > likely to lead to a pissing contest. It seems to me that some > SRFIs are more important than others if one wants to > consider compatibility. I think you're really just accumulating facts and get in trouble when you get into adding judgments. Avoid the complex derivatives, so to speak. You have a fine looking spread, other than that, as far as I know :-) -t _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
