On 2 Oct 2009, at 6:18 am, John Cowan wrote: > I'm officially abandoning part 4A (record printing) and part 5 > (extensible > lexical syntax) of my proposal. I can't even come to consensus in my > own head, and I doubt that WG1 will be able to either. So I'm no > longer > proposing any standardization in this area. There's certainly none in > the current Scheme implementations.
Is this thing on? I can't believe nobody's replied to this... ...so I shall. I agree. Resist the urge to put things in the core because it'd be nice to have them. I'm all for things being out in SRFIs. It makes it a little more complex to explain a program's dependencies, but I think "standard profiles" will fall out naturally, but be advisory rather than compulsory in nature. > Thanks for everyone's help both here and on #scheme. Oh, thank you! I think you've been a great steward of a proposal. When people have disagreed with you, you've backed down, rather than giving your own wishes preferential treatment. Which is a depressingly rare attribute... Now, what remains is to see who is on WG1, and what *they* think of the proposal ;-) ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym Work: http://www.snell-systems.co.uk/ Play: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ Blog: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/archives/author/alaric/ _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
