------- Forwarded message ------- From: "John Cowan" <[email protected]> To: "Aaron W. Hsu" <[email protected]> Cc: "John Cowan" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] Proposed features for small Scheme, part 1: a stake in the ground Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:37:15 -0400
Aaron W. Hsu scripsit: > to emphasize backwards compatibility. There is no reason to break > compatibility with older systems in Scheme, since not that much has > really > changed. I've backed off the claim that R4RS is an obsolete standard, but I stick with the claim that R4RS-only implementations are not being actively developed: I await counterexamples other than Stalin. > We've added things, sure, but it should still be possible to > express that a program is R4RS instead of R5RS, IMO. There's no way to do that now, except with ad hoc metadata. > Using the right set of modular libraries, I bet we could also allow > differing semantics to some extent for backwards compatibility sake, > though I don't see any reason to do this since nearly everything is > R5RS now, and there are precious few programs left in the Scheme world > relying on, say, nil == #f. Just so. Even R4RS doesn't actually allow that, it just says some implementations break the rules. -- Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. -- C. S. Lewis _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
