Thomas Bushnell, BSG scripsit: > I think the whole concept is an insane departure from the guiding > principle of Scheme standardization, which is to provide a small set > of extremely powerful features.
That's why there's WG1 and WG2. > Perhaps the WG2 thing language should be called "CL-Scheme" We do need a name for the WG2 language, and Common Scheme actually isn't bad. Then we can call the WG1 language Diamond Scheme. > and have a loop macro. :) It definitely will, probably either Taylor Campbell's or Olin Shivers's. No :-) at all. -- You annoy me, Rattray! You disgust me! John Cowan You irritate me unspeakably! Thank Heaven, [email protected] I am a man of equable temper, or I should http://www.ccil.org/~cowan scarcely be able to contain myself before your mocking visage. --Stalky imitating Macrea _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
