On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:50:57 -0400, Grant Rettke <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? [...] >> but their recommended default language is one that breaks with these >> standards. > > It is a completely different language; why should it conform? No reason. I'm not complaining about PLT's breaking with the standards in their languages. That's a fine and good thing to do to further Scheme development. >> 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? Yes, but R6RS allowed them to maintain the semantics they wanted to use in a few key areas. I doubt that R7RS, if it goes against their semantic models is going to get a lot of attention from them. They probably will implement it, but on something like phasing, that is something that is much harder to integrate with other languages than say, mutable pairs. 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
