Sam Tobin-Hochstadt scripsit: > There's also a lesson for everyone in the Scheme community, if they > care to take it.
Some do and some don't: that's what makes horse races. > At one time, Scheme featured `LABELS`, In the pre-standardization period only. > unhygenic macros, Never standardized. > and `(eq? 'nil #f)`. Deprecated from the beginning of standardization (R2RS). > Fortunately, those decisions were discarded. Indeed, the only case of a Scheme standard which was fully backward compatible was R5RS. > Given the general attitude of this process toward the prior Scheme > standard, I guess backwards compatibility is only important for bad > past decisions. Of the 39 changes from R5RS to R6RS enumerated in the latter document, 22 were adopted as a whole or in part, 11 rejected as a whole or in part, and 6 received some other treatment. See <http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/FiveToSixToSeven> for details. That hardly constitutes wholesale rejection of R6RS by R7RS. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] XQuery Blueberry DOM Entity parser dot-com Abstract schemata / XPointer errata Infoset Unicode BOM --Richard Tobin _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
