2009/9/11 Matthias Felleisen <[email protected]>: > On Sep 11, 2009, at 10:12 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >> Thing0-Family > > [The word 'types' in serious PL society refers to a purely > syntactic concept,
I'm aware of that sense. There are others as well that might deserve to be called serious. I'll admit that I am thinking in a more category-theoretic sense than a syntactic one. > Interestingly enough this description includes > > Typed Scheme > Lazy Scheme Intentionally so. I think it is important to have a sense of perspective about what constitutes Scheme before we get all language-lawyerly about it. > while the next few bullet points > >> Thing0-Strict: > exclude only Lazy Scheme. And some (older) flavors of Stalin. And I'm not 100% sure that the safe-for-space is commonly implemented. I recall reading about it in the SML world and I recall it being a little bit more subtle than plain TCO. > The problem with this entire conversation is not that the > lack of seriousness, it is the lack of an acknowledgement > of the fundamental thesis of the Steering Committee that > languages are like sharks. Remain still and die, or move. That is a very interesting sociological point. And, to some degree it was also my point in providing this list, although you phrased it rather better. R4RS is a very good language. I don't see it dying just because we move to a R99 (or whatever) > So now we have a nice 10-bullet commandment list for the > small thing, how do you actually program in it? I see you like the Strict version :) But Thing0 is intentionally so vague as to be just a statement of principles. Thing1 appears to be the SC's instantiation of a Thing0-Strict family member. So does Thing2 for that matter, but it's "bigger". > The other problem is that the discussion focuses on only > one of the two essential things, ignoring again that the > Steering Committee established an intimate link between > the two of them. Yes. I am trying to establish a least-upper-bound on the "size" (whatever that means) of Thing1 since there appears to be a rush to pile features into it very quickly. Your Shark analogy is I think the most telling point here. R4RS is a perfectly good realization of Thing0-Strict and would make an excellent Thing1. david rush -- Self-proclaimed PL dilettante _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
