On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 23:42 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Ray Dillinger scripsit:
> > This is a fundamental tension between WG1 and WG2, I think. For WG1
> > we want the ultra-simple language we can get by removing all the
> > restrictions and treating everything orthogonally. For WG2, you want
> > the restrictions for the sake of static reasoning/discoverability/etc,
> > and therefore need a bunch of additional complications not needed in
> > (but probably compatible with) WG1.
> I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think R7RS is
> going to look like that. Instead, there will be (per the charters)
> a contravariant relationship: every Thing One program is a Thing Two
> program, and every Thing Two implementation is a Thing One implementation.
Then, respectfully, I claim that whatever WG1 comes up with, will *not*
serve the audience it was intended to serve.
If WG1 scheme inherits the restrictions of WG2 without the additional
forms required to deal with those restrictions, then it will be a
crippled language not usable for much. Being a general-purpose
computer language means either those restrictions are gone, or the
additional machinery required to deal with them is present. There
is no point in having a WG1, and WG1 cannot be used for serious
development, if it is required for it to have the semantic restrictions
on forms that WG2 wants to have.
Bear
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
