On 10 Sep 2009, at 12:59 am, John Cowan wrote: > Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit: > >> So what this tells us from an R7RS perspective is >> that it'd be nice to have a standard facility to ask that a block of >> code be totally ignored (not even macro-expanded, lest we use >> implementation-specific macros that throw up errors in other >> implementations) if we're not on a particular implementation. > > That's cond-expand, SRFI-0. You are the first person to defend it in > my virtual hearing, though it is very widely implemented. Should I > add > it to my proposals?
Yes please, with a "necessary evil" tag attached ;-) >> 50 pages is by no means magical! I'm more interested in keeping >> features that aren't necessary for "being Scheme" > > But what is Scheme? (said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an > answer). Good question. Let the discussions continue ;-) ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym Work: http://www.snell-systems.co.uk/ Play: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ Blog: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/archives/author/alaric/ _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
