> If you want R4RS, or Common Lisp, or SCM, you know where to find all > those things.
John, John, this is a regression from your new ultra-reasonable image to the former I'm-right-you're-wrong one I used to hate. Look, here is our situation: 1. Face it, the idea of a language standard that specifies two different languages (WG1/WG2) is an incredible kludge. 2. The reason the SC found it necessary to endorse such a kludge is that they recognized the existence of /irreconcilable differences/ within the Scheme community, and (commendably) want a way to settle the dilemma without reading anyone out of the community. 3. To characterize the desires of people who don't want to be forced to live in an R6-like world as unSchemely [I am reacting here mainly to the inclusion of Common Lisp in your litany] defeats this purpose. And, if I may say so, if anyone is going to call anyone unSchemely I think R6 is on its face a more plausible target than R5 -- or, yes, R4. I'm aware that the SC doesn't pose the issue in the terms suggested by #2 above. Indeed, they want WG1 and WG2 to be the Lite and Pro versions of the same language. I think this is Pollyannaish of them; if that were possible, then we wouldn't need two standards. We would call WG1 the core, and WG2 the standard library, of a single language. By the way, I am in fact using an R4-vintage Scheme for my work, not because I dislike R5 but because we made some local modifications to it and it's too much trouble to propagate them up. But I'm confident that at some point software rot will set in, and I'm going to have to switch to a newer Scheme; that's why I have a stake in the standardization conversation. I'm sure you understand that, too; it's disingenuous for you to say "just use R4RS." You've been suggesting, in various ways, that R6 is an inevitable working out of ideas introduced in R5. I don't know if that's true, but accepting hypothetically for this paragraph that it /is/ true, then indeed R6 is a proof-by-contradiction that R5 fails in its purpose, which was as I recall much more incremental than those of R6. And in that case, WG1 /should/ seriously consider using R4 as the starting point for its work. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
