It's almost Orwellian. On Sun, 2009-09-06 at 16:37 -0400, Andre van Tonder wrote: > On Sun, 6 Sep 2009, Thomas Lord wrote: > > > How about this, instead: > > > > The "small scheme" standard should describe a tiny, > > interpreted dialect that is highly reflective and > > has a clear and definite semantics. A critical > > property of this tiny interpreted dialect is that its > > semantics and capabilities are sufficiently rich > > that every more conservative Scheme environment can > > be modeled in a natural way. > > > > Then we can do things like formally specify hygienic > > macros or modules as programs in that core dialect. > > While all this would be very nice as a research project, > I doubt that it is a practicable or desirable project > for a language standardization committee to undertake. > Standardization is not the point to introduce new > or largely unknown or untested concepts, or APIs on > which no consensus is likely to be attained.
Because SCM doesn't exist? Because the canonical three-register-machine operational semantics is a recent and radical speculation? Huh? -t _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
