Brian Harvey scripsit:
> I can't help feeling that we've jumped prematurely into debates about the
> relative importance of specific obscure features when we first need to settle
> the question of why have WG1 at all. It /can't/ be a question of "what is the
> minimum needed to have something called Scheme" since we lived for quite a
> while with much smaller standards than even R5.
By what convention of size? Between R2RS (1985) and R5RS (1998), Scheme
grew by 21 bound identifiers -- and *shrank* by 31 bound identifiers.
Here they are, in case anyone wonders:
-1+ 1+ <=? <? =? >=? >? append! exactness fix flo heur int
last-pair named-lambda nil object-hash object-unhash polar radix
rat rec rect sci sequence string-null? string=? substring-fill!
substring-move-left! substring-move-right! t
> I also don't really understand why even people who more or less like R6 are
> eagerly engaging in this conversation about WG1, while I've seen /nothing/
> about WG2 -- unless that discussion has quietly moved to some less
> contentious forum. :-)
All this conversation wouldn't exist except for my postings, and I'm
talking about Thing One at the moment. When I get to Thing Two, I'll
get to it, never fear. I will admit to having stronger opinions about
Thing One.
That doesn't mean that the rest of you can't talk among yourselves about
Thing Two. By all means.
Still moving about briskly, eh?
> I want
> WG2 to be the only-slightly-bigger-than-WG1 language that supports all the
> possible accessories, and WG1 to admit nothing that isn't jewel-like, no
> matter how useful it might be.
There is *nothing* jewel-like about Scheme's procedure library. It's a
collection of useful hacks, no more, no less.
--
Only do what only you can do. John Cowan <[email protected]>
--Edsger W. Dijkstra's advice
to a student in search of a thesis
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
