Brian Harvey scripsit: > Earlier today (at least that's when it showed up in my mailbox) > someone argued that it would be wrong to pretend R6RS never happened. > I agree, but I would argue that it would be just as wrong to pretend > that the extremely strongly-felt opposition to R6 never happened.
At least some of that opposition was also grounded on the sense that the R6 committee ignored prior art in the form of SRFIs, which is why I have taken pains to ground almost all my proposals in well-established, frequently implemented SRFIs. There is clearly an asymmetry between Thing One and Thing Two: roughly speaking, they are intended to be the successors to R5RS and R6RS respectively, with no more incompatibility than absolutely necessary to achieve their different goals. > I think that one plausible way not to pretend in either direction would > be this: Elements of the standard that are new in R6 should be part > of the consensus fallback for R7 iff they are extensions that don't > break R5. I think that is too strong, for the reasons given above and other reasons. I, at least, am in favor of extending the basic Scheme syntax and procedure library only where there is compelling evidence that it should be. -- John Cowan [email protected] I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, LOTR:FOTR _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
