Brian Harvey scripsit: > Yes, exactly. But I'm not just asserting this as a personal preference, > which can battle forever against other people's personal preferences. I'm > claiming that the difference between these two preferences is precisely > (well, more or less precisely :-) the difference between R6-haters and > R6-lovers, and therefore, precisely the reason why we have this WG1/WG2 > business in the first place.
Well, that's an empirical claim and easily refuted. Among the R5RS implementations, meaning those that have no intention to move to R6RS, *exactly one* behaves in the way you mention. Either you rule out all Schemes but SCM as lacking in the true R5RS nature (a "no true Scotsman" fallacy), or you accept that people can and do love R5RS while making a clear distinction between expand time and run time (which does *not* mean they are not intertwingled). A Scheme world without Gauche, MIT Scheme, Gambit, Chicken, Bigloo, scsh, Guile, Kawa, SISC, or Chibi is a pretty strange place. > I hereby name all of the above "the WG1ical Imperative." In some alternate universe, perhaps. -- MEET US AT POINT ORANGE AT MIDNIGHT BRING YOUR DUCK OR PREPARE TO FACE WUGGUMS John Cowan [email protected] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
