Andre van Tonder scripsit: > No, if there is to be a Thing Two, they will have to be compatible. It > really is a small change (simply disallow forward uses of macros) that > significantly simplifies the expansion process (from 2-pass to 1-pass) > by disallowing a corner case that is hardly ever even used by anybody.
It's not really the R5RS code-stream vs. R6RS top-level program discrepancies that worry me: as you say, some flexibility in R6RS can be rolled back. It's the R5RS code-stream vs. R6RS library discrepancies that are the true concern, because they are *very different* in model. > One pass is simpler for users to understand. Insisting on two-pass > expansion in R6 is very much like insisting on two-pass for evaluation, +1 -- It was impossible to inveigle John Cowan <[email protected]> Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Into offering the slightest apology For his Phenomenology. --W. H. Auden, from "People" (1953) _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
