Brian Harvey scripsit: > 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.
I haven't changed in either case. You might say I'm dogmatic about what I know and skeptical/cautious about what I don't. Some people think this is a character flaw. > 1. Face it, the idea of a language standard that specifies two different > languages (WG1/WG2) is an incredible kludge. It's *very* common for standards to have conformance levels. Examples: Minimal Basic and Full Basic, Basic Fortran and Fortran, Cobol Level I/II/..., well-formed XML and valid XML, simple and full conformance to XLink (not yet published). > 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. Quite. > 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. I *never* intended or implied that. I do have problems with people who think R5RS is unSchemely. The reason to mention CL was that it is an example of an extremely dynamic language, far more so than R5RS. About the only static thing is the bindings of names in the LISP: package. > 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. That's a big change. In R6RS, or ISO C for that matter, the standard library is just as much part of the implementation as the language proper is. (Another pair for the list above: freestanding C and hosted C.) > You've been suggesting, in various ways, that R6 is an inevitable working > out of ideas introduced in R5. Again, not at all. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] Please leave your values Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel --Cordelia Vorkosigan _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
