On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Vincent Manis <[email protected]> wrote:
> Absolutely no disagreement here. Pattern matching is extremely important, > and I hope WG2 can come up with a clean set of pattern matching facilities. > Having said that, I'm reluctant to change (as opposed to cleaning up > specifications for) anything defined in R5RS (or in some cases R6RS). C.A.R. > Hoare once said something to the effect that the absolute last place to do > any language design is in preparing a standard. This has always struck me as > very sensible. The IETF has or had a rule that nothing was to be standardized without at least two independent implementations. Much mischief with R6RS could have been avoided if there had even been a requirement of one implementation. I believe this needs to be solidly established here for both WGs, and I think the steering committee should add it to the remit if that's not possible: nothing can be standardized without at least two independent implementations that demonstrably interoperate. Thomas
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
