Grant Rettke scripsit: > Don't people want a minimalistic "small language"?
So it seems, but why? We get a lot of "I use <whatever> all the time, it's handy, it's easy to describe, so keep it out of the Standard". This isn't rational standardization, it's *nostalgie de la boue*, for a *boue* that never actually existed. > You need this if you want to see the 2.5-specification model for R7RS of: > > 1. Core language features: lambda, define, let Even R5RS doesn't call "let" a core feature. And it's all definable in terms of lambda, after all. > 2. Base language > - Features: letrec, let*, begin, syntax-rules > - Libraries: records and so on Please see my post on why "being in a library" and "being optional for an implementation" are orthogonal concepts. -- I don't know half of you half as well John Cowan as I should like, and I like less than half [email protected] of you half as well as you deserve. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Bilbo _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
