John Cowan wrote: > Faré scripsit: > >> I'm a Lisper at heart, and I'd like the next Scheme to be the future >> of Lisp. >> > I think that's a category mistake: standardization is, or ought to be, > an inherently conservative activity, consolidating the past rather than > boldly conquering the future. > I concur completely. Standardization is a process whereby the diverse experiments of different implementations converge, whereby we build consensus on a new common point from where to proceed further. We do not invent new mechanisms here. In R6RS's inclusion of untested innovations lies, I believe, its failure. We want, in the felicitous words of the Steering Committee's position statement, a "happier outcome."
Faré wrote: > In short, instead of arguing whether this or that datastructure with > its accompanying flurry of associated (de)constructors should be in > the standard, I'd like to see [...] > One more point, and not meaning to "pile on": to date, all the recent discussion on this list that I've seen has been for so-called "Small" Scheme, the all-new Scheme-branded product that satisfies the many fans of IEEE1178. If you are seeking bold changes in Scheme, you will this product particularly dissatisfying. (This might be a good time to review the charters of the current process at http://www.scheme-reports.org/. I just did.) Ben _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
