On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, John Cowan wrote: > 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.
The R6 toplevel, R6 libraries, and R6 lambda bodies all use the same 2-pass expansion algorithm. It would make little sense to modify one to be 1-pass and not the others. Andre _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
