On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:07:18 -0400, Grant Rettke <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Aaron W. Hsu <[email protected]> > wrote: >> the PLT people would probably not change even if the standard said >> otherwise. > > Why not? I get the impression that PLT Scheme is about getting to the research goals they have, and not necessarily about creating a stable, standards compliant implementation by default. Sure, they implement the standards, but their recommended default language is one that breaks with these standards. That's not necessarily a bad thing at all, but I don't expect PLT Scheme to suddenly change its ways of doing things when the next report comes out. They wanted immmutable pairs, and so they put them in. They believe firmly in multiple instantiation, explicit phasing semantics, and I doubt they'll change that either, just because some report says otherwise. I think we ought to allow both semantics. Aaron W. Hsu -- Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. -- C. S. Lewis _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
