On 2012-01-11, at 05:42, Alex Shinn wrote: > I think this reasoning is flawed. If we believe the > names are bad, and that R6RS fixed the names, > we should go with R6RS, not write an apology. > > R5RS compatibility can be broken in cases, especially > where R6RS has already paved the way, and names > are trivial to provide compatibility for since the module > system allows for renaming.
+1. A less-desirable alternative is to provide the R6RS names as synonyms. -- vincent _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
