On Sun, 6 Sep 2009, Thomas Lord wrote: > On Sun, 2009-09-06 at 16:37 -0400, Andre van Tonder wrote: >> >> 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?
For an incremental Scheme standardization process with a 90% consensus threshold, at this moment, for good or bad, yes, and yes. Andre _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
