On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:24:03PM -0700, Brian Harvey wrote: > > I have come up with a proposal for mildly extensible lexical syntax > > I have no argument with the details of the notation, but could you please > provide some explanation for why you think this belongs in Small Scheme? > As you point out, it solves a limited class of problems, rather than > elucidating the practical working out of some brilliant general principle.
What I also don't understand is why we keep inventing (mostly) brand new things. Earlier someone mentioned that the Scheme *report* is a report on existing practices, in order to standardize those things that have been proven to work in practice. I think this is a good goal to keep. Let implementations experiment with this idea and when 2 or more implementations have come up with something that really works and when all the details have been ironed out and people understand the consequences, standardize it. This also helps us keep the WG focused. Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx -- "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music." -- Donald Knuth
pgpO7JanNtmiy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
