On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Aaron W. Hsu <[email protected]> wrote: > 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,
Based on the "Story of Scheme" that would be the case with implementation wouldn't it? > and not necessarily about creating a stable, standards compliant > implementation by default. Sure, they implement the standards, Confusing. The problem is not that it is the default is it? Run plt-r6rs; R6RS is the default. > but their recommended default language is one that breaks with these > standards. It is a completely different language; why should it conform? > I doubt they'll change that either, just because some report says otherwise. > I think we > ought to allow both semantics. The implement and support R6RS. Why should R7RS be any different? _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
