Hi Alex, Thanks for writing this page, it is on the whole a good document.
A couple of points come to mind: > Identifier syntax is not provided. We feel this is a useful feature in > some situations, but the existence of such macros means that neither > programmers nor other macros can look at an identifier in an evaluated > position and know it is a reference -- this in a sense makes all > macros slightly weaker. We'd like to see individual implementations > continue experimenting with this and other extensions before > standardizing. I do not think that this is a suitable justification. (I think it's fine to not have a justification FWIW; better than a bad justification.) In particular you can make the same argument about not knowing whether a particular form is an expression or a definition. I guess my question is, why is this a good argument against identifier-syntax? > Internal syntax definitions are allowed, but all references to syntax > must follow the definition -- the even/odd example given is R6RS is > not allowed. Implementations may (and some will) support the even/odd example, however. I hope that such an implementation will still be deemed a compatible Scheme system. > The division operators div, mod, div-and-mod, div0, mod0 and > div-and-mod0 have been replaced with a full set of 15 operators > describing 5 rounding semantics. R7RS does include the equivalents of div and mod, but not div0 and mod0. The centered/ that I suggested was the div0/mod0 equivalent; I gave arguments for it, but it was not deemed to be useful. > When a result is unspecified, it is still required to be a single > value, in the interests of R5RS compatibility. I still consider this to be an unnecessary restriction, and a shameful one at that. Regards, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/ _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
