On Sep 8, Andre van Tonder wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> > Did crack become popular in the Scheme circles?
> >
> > (In other words: did you check the title of the mailing list
> > you're using?)
>
> The mailing list has been repurposed somewhat. The discussion has
> not been about R6 for a while now.
1. Yes, I didn't complain about off-topic messages. It's a few
hundred messages too late.
2. This whole thing about pretending that r6rs never existed *is* what
I'm complaining about. It's a huge amount of work, and in my view
the explicit way in which it is ignored is:
- disrespectful to the people who have worked hard on it. (I'm not
a native English speaker, and I'm not from a local culture, so
this might be a bad choice of words, and perhaps it's just me
that looks at it as something so *rude*.)
- not in line with the SC texts, that mention compatibility with
"IEEE, R5RS, and R6RS standards".
- surreal when the original text gets to:
| Hash tables really are ripe for a standard.
because
- hash tables *were* standardized;
- in a document that is mentioned *explicitly* in both WG
charters;
- in a part of it that was rarely mentioned in any criticism (for
example, most mentions in the texts accompanying negative r6rs
votes complain about having hash tables in the standard --
something that the OP clearly has no problems with);
- and in case anyone could have genuinely forget that, then it is
mentioned in the subject line of every post and it is part of
the email address that is used.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
