On Sep 11, 2009, at 8:12 PM, John Cowan wrote: >> >> It seems a rather unfortunate state that there are several places in >> RnRS that require a language lawyer well steeped in the history of >> functional programming to parse. > > All standards are like this (as indeed are actual legal documents): > they must always be interpreted with regard to a community of > practice.
Indisputably so for a language that is designed by piling feature upon feature. If Scheme still strives to the goal set at the beginning of the RnRS introduction, this is one feeble excuse for deficiencies of the standard, if you ask me. One easy way out is to be consistent and remove the first paragraph completely; however, I doubt that many would agree to this. --andrew _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
